Re: [linux-audio-dev] LAAGA vs ALSA ... silent for a while
Benno Senoner wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, you wrote: > > > > > > 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). > > That's not an option. > Many developers (including me) do not have the time to keep up with > the development version of ALSA. > This is why I prefer Paul Davis' approach: you can use the audio i/o API > you like without being tied to ALSA. > (I do agree with Vincent's last mail too) I was referring to ALSA API not ALSA implementation. > > > 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. > > Please summarize the advantages in a few sentences. > (the old LAAGA threads are way too diluted, we want the juice please) I'm *very* short of time currently. > > > 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 ;-) > > Prove it please. Ditto, but you may see this reading the source. -- 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!
Re: [linux-audio-dev] LAAGA vs ALSA ... silent for a while
>> 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 would like LAAGA to be a fast, lean, easy to use, higher >level (than the sound driver itself) API that _hides_ the >hardware interface completely from all clients that use it. It I want slightly more than that actually. I want it to hide (like the BeOS MediaKit and the Apple OS-X CoreAudio API) virtually all of the *concepts* associated with a hardware interface as well. >seems to me that it should be kept separate from the driver >itself so that it can potentially be ported to other drivers >and or platforms. I agree entirely. In my prototype code, we have: clientengine | | V V +---+ | liblaaga.so |<- driver +---+ it also happens that in most cases (not all) a "driver" will be a client also, but thats not something for application/client/plugin writers to care about. also note that the definition of a driver in my prototype is simply an object/thread that calls laaga_engine_process(nframes_t) periodically. thats more or less the only definition there is of what it has to do, although it also needs to respond to certain calls from the engine (perhaps by doing nothing). --p
Re: [linux-audio-dev] LAAGA vs ALSA ... silent for a while
[Abramo wrote] > 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 would like LAAGA to be a fast, lean, easy to use, higher level (than the sound driver itself) API that _hides_ the hardware interface completely from all clients that use it. It seems to me that it should be kept separate from the driver itself so that it can potentially be ported to other drivers and or platforms. -- Fernando
Re: [linux-audio-dev] LAAGA vs ALSA ... silent for a while
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, you wrote: > > > > 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). That's not an option. Many developers (including me) do not have the time to keep up with the development version of ALSA. This is why I prefer Paul Davis' approach: you can use the audio i/o API you like without being tied to ALSA. (I do agree with Vincent's last mail too) > > > 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. Please summarize the advantages in a few sentences. (the old LAAGA threads are way too diluted, we want the juice please) > > > 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 ;-) Prove it please. The LAAGA API must IMHO be based on top of ALSA/OSS and not integrated within. Benno. http://www.linuxaudiodev.org The Home of Linux Audio Development
Re: [linux-audio-dev] LAAGA vs ALSA ... silent for a while
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!
