To clearify: I got a pissed off with the latest changes of defaults in libpthread of my favorite distro.
Pouring it all down in jack would mean that everything breaks or nothing breaks, ie: Detectable! On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 04:29 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > Wouldn't it be natural to have midi (triggers,u-nameit) to come along > with the call from jack? One more argument in the call wouldn't break > anything in legacy-applications. > > My rationale being that the midi-aware application would like to know > the latest news of the world (and adjust), before doing its > calculations, right? And getting it from jack (running RT) would > guarantee that this really is the latest and truest description of the > midi-world, no? > > > > ... > ... > Mmmm .. Have we been here before? > > > > On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 09:03 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote: > > Stefan Turner wrote: > > > > >I will definitely look into using DSSI, looks like it > > >could be good once as supported as LADSPA is (I'd > > >never even heard of it before your post, although > > >that's probably just me). Is it intended as an > > >eventual LADSPA replacement? I never really saw the > > >need to divide plugins into 'instruments' and > > >'effects', and it seems like DSSI can do both. > > > > > > > > If I may chime in here... I urge all Linux audio developers to read the > > DSSI spec, it's well-written and directly addresses some of LADSPA's > > shortcomings. After working with VSTi plugins for a while I've begun to > > see the need for something similar in a native Linux architecture, and I > > think DSSI is an excellent way for us to get that. If you don't already > > know about it, you can learn more about DSSI here: > > > > http://dssi.sourceforge.net/ > > > > Again, if you're a developer, check it out. Some good minds are behind > > its design, and Linux audio software truly needs DSSI (or something like). > > > > Best, > > > > dp > > > > -- ( ) c[] // Jens M Andreasen