How would jack know about a client that is stopped because the user
closed it, or stopped because it got removed from NSM?
Some collaboration/talk between NSM and the patch tool is needed in
order to make this possible, as far as I can tell.
On 04/01/21 00:57, J. Liles wrote:
Personally, I've already put enough thought into it to decide that it
must be addressed in JACK.
JACK needs to give JACKPatch a way to distinguish between a client
disappearing and a connection being explicitly severed by (proxied)
user action.
AFIAK there's nothing in the JACK API for this.
Add that, and I'll change JACKPatch so that it only forgets
connections that are explicitly severed, rather than ones due to the
client or port disappearing.
Obviously there are probably some more subtle issues involved, but I'm
quite sure it's not JACKPatch's problem.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 4:54 PM Filipe Coelho <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 04/01/21 00:49, J. Liles wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 4:38 PM Filipe Coelho <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 04/01/21 00:20, J. Liles wrote:
For the bystanders: one thing that's funny about all this is
that I use Non every day, including NSM, and I have a very
low tolerance for buggy/crashy software, and in all this
time, with all the fork drama etc. I've worked on Non,
adding things I need, fixing bugs I encounter. Well, in all
of that, I can't recall having needed to make a single
change to NSM. It just works. So this idea that there's is
or was some dire usability issue with NSM is to me laughable.)
The link I posted from Nils disagrees with you.
https://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=21772&p=121745#p121745
It is expected that it works for you.
My tools also work for me, but then people find issues by
doing things I am not doing. Bugs are still there, even if I
dont ever experience them.
Yes, I understand that people encounter weird bugs on different
systems and with different clients and all that. But those are
not justifications for the actions you and your comrades have
taken. What justification do you have for not politely submitting
a PR? I like fixing bugs just as much as the next guy.
The "justification" is that it is much easier to report a bug than
it is to fix it.
Plus, FLTK/NTK is not widely used, so most people do not know it
(yet). Perhaps a few things would be simple things for you to do.
In any case, a ticket is not a demand. Just brings visibility to
the issue. Who knows, maybe someone else sees it and decides to
fix it.
Not everyone is a developer, we should not be asking everyone to
submit patches instead of issues. Some are just incapable of that
in the present time.
Sure, there are many things I wish I had. Fillipe says that
JACKPatch has some "usability problem." I disagree. It is
what it is.
To be clear here. The issue is that jackpatch ignores
applications that are no longer running.
If you have a session where you temporarily want to stop
closing something just to focus on one part of it, then save,
connections for all the other applications are lost.
It is very annoying when it happens, often misinterpreted as
a bug of the SM.
I have a few ideas on how to go about solving/working-around
it, and others have alternative ideas. There was no true
consensus yet.
Maybe it is just not something for jackpatch to deal with,
but a new tool. You seem to think the same way from what I
understand on the messages below.
Yes, but that's not a problem with JACKPatch. That's why I say,
"it is what it is." The problem is with the protocol, which is
JACK's domain, and anything I could do in JACKPatch would be a
crappy workaround. I'd be happy to discuss the matter. But you
really shouldn't go around accusing people of having flawed
software when the flaw is in the underlying subsystem.
NSM is quite good, this was/is not a criticism.
There exists still a user-experience problem, this is not an
accusation.
I will be happy to discuss a possible solution too, just waiting
for all to calm down a bit more first.
But it would be nice to have a better connection manager
than Patchage to pair with it, and maybe some extra info
from the JACK API to identify certain tricky scenarios that
JACKPatch currently has no way to know about. Maybe if I
could drive home the NSM "everything is a client" philosophy
a little harder, people would stop blaming NSM for being
incomplete, when the fact is that it was never intended to
be a complete solution for anything other than supporting
sessions of clients. Clients therefore, are the seat of your
extensibility. Write a client that does something cool and
you can have all the fame you like and with no obligation to
share it with me or NSM.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 4:09 PM Filipe Coelho
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 03/01/21 23:57, rosea.grammostola wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, January 4, 2021 12:47 AM, Filipe Coelho
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
1. the new-session-manager fork was done by Nils, not
me. I appreciated the effort and contributed some
little things afterwards.
The idea for a fork was yours Filipe. You're fully
responsible for it, together with Nils. There is no
point in denying or downplaying your role.
Huh? Where did you get this from?
I approved the idea of a fork, yes. Not sure if I was
the first one to suggest it, I am pretty sure a bunch of
people thought about it too.
I did say that I would maintain the "old" GUI if needed,
you can point the finger at me for that.
But wait, just because I have an idea for something, how
does it make me responsible for it?
It would not have happened if others did not have
interest on it.
Stop making it all on me.
Thanks
