On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 06:37:13PM +1100, Loki Davison wrote: > On 11/3/06, Jens M Andreasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 13:42 +1100, Loki Davison wrote: > > > >> mmm. I think they are missing the point about ALSA vs OSS api here. It > >> doesn't matter. The only one who should care about alsa vs oss is the > >> jack guys who write the jack backend. Everyone else uses the clear, > >> nice, well implemented, well documented modern and sensible jack api > >> instead of some very 80's style pipe based system. > > > >JACK isn't based on "some very 80' style" named pipes anymore? When did > >that happen? > > I actually meant vs a callback based system. Jack being callback based > makes it easier to understand in my mind. I didn't mention named > pipes, just the | <> signs. Even without the pipe section i think the > comment still stands. As a person new to all 3 i found jack by far the > easiest to understand and use.
I'd say that the essential feature of JACK is not that it is a callback based system, but that it presents and expects audio data in fixed size blocks and enforces the rule that all clients must have processed a block before the next arrives. This could be done with blocking as well as with a callback, and indeed it would be useful if JACK offered that option. -- FA Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.