Benno Senoner wrote:
>
> 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.
A backend for OSS is scheduled (although low priority).
> Plus: Abramo can you tell us what kind of advantages an integration
> of LAAGA into ALSA would bring us ?
See the neverending thread on lad.
> 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)
You're ;-)
--
Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
ALSA project http://www.alsa-project.org
It sounds good!
