On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, you wrote:
> >
> > I believe (as I've said several times) that OSS and ALSA are Hardware
> > Abstraction Layers, and not anything close to a model of a generalized
> > design for connecting multiple applications/plugins in a low latency
> > system. They work well or even very well for applications that are
> > interacting with audio h/w, but not, IMHO (and that of Abramo, too, I
> > believe) for the purposes outlined by Kai for LAAGA.
>
> No, it's not my opinion.
>
> I think that the best solution would be the integration of ALSA with
> LAAGA (with obvious mutual benefits). This likely means some changes to
> ALSA API too.
I disagree here.
I prefer to see ALSA as a low-level hardware API where you can talk to the
various audio devices in a standardized way.
(basically I do agree with Paul's opinion).
I want LAAGA working on OSS/Free , OSS too.
That's one of the reasons why I do prefer keeping it separate.
Plus: Abramo can you tell us what kind of advantages an integration
of LAAGA into ALSA would bring us ?
Keep in mind that #1 priority is that lowlatency must be assured at any cost.
It's very easy to screw up latencies.
I think that if ALSA does "too much" without the user knowing what is doing is
dangerous in some ways. (but I could be wrong)
Thoughts ?
Benno.
