On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:58:05 +0200, Tim Goetze wrote: [toolkit problem]
> that's where out-of-process is our only hope of unification i think. > this or that some sunny day all of the toolkits agree on a common > divisor. Well, it is possible to write a plugin-specific common denominator. I have no idea how much work it would be and it would have to be written for every toolkit that people wanted to write hosts against. > if the Jack server turned into a library, it would be easy to write a > jackd, jackd-tk, a jackd-fltk, a jackd-qt, jackd-gtk, and load clients > into the 'jackd-x' server process if they agree on toolkit 'x' and are > .so themselves. I think this would be a real headache to code, I'm still thinking along the lines of self contaitned .so-s that are dlloaded into a particular host and the graph is controlled by that host. > what i liked about the CA approach, and like about Jack, is the graph > idea. i think all the Jack graph lacks conceptually is the ability > to also transport timestamped, structured information among client I agree. I think building graph a API into CA was a good idea, it could allow a much greater level of interoperability between hosts. > if all clients initially support a small tree of common named object > types, we might be able to create a simple ever-emerging API which > can express solutions in many problem spaces, leaves all authors > reasonably free and which will converge by evolution: Interesting idea. I'm not sure how it would pan out in reality. It might be a good match to the heavily distributed Free s/w development model, but it might also degenerate into chaos ;) MIDI seems the be one thing there is a lot of requests for, and it would also be one of the hardest to agree on. - Steve
