From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: future ALSA development Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:51:30 +0200 Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <200306231335.PAA10806@alsa.alsa-project.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from Cantor.suse.de (ns.suse.de [213.95.15.193]) by alsa.alsa-project.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id PAA11046 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:51:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200306231335.PAA10806@alsa.alsa-project.org> Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Paul Davis Cc: ALSA development List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:41:32 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > >my afraid is that the more control flows like conditionals may lead to > >a difficulty for a parser utility. i.e. the parser itself would be > >like an interprerter. but it's true that an extesion is needed > >anyway... > > with a smile, i seem to recall noting that we'd end up with > lisp. quasimodo had gone through the same song and dance with a custom > configuration parser only to eventually find that guile made more > sense in almost every way. there is some adage about reinventing lisp > that i forget. oh yeah. btw, what was the biggest reason to change to XML in ardour? it used guile once upon a time. > >IMO, the current simple-mixer API is still too complicated and not a > >good abstraction. as you mentioned, there is a big gap between the > >low-level expressions (control API) and the reasonable mixer > >appearance. the extra information for the mixer would be needed to > >fill this gap, too. > > i'd like to put in a plug for a API that includes the one basic > operation that JACK cannot implement on "generic" hardware: > > "make the signal coming to the current capture input > appear at the output". > > i.e. hardware monitoring. this is a really major flaw in JACK when run > on all consumer audio interfaces: they are quite capable of doing > analog-level h/w monitoring, but JACK can't use it. > > i know that the semantics need to be better defined than in my > sentence above. this can be implemented better once when we have an ordinary-mixer API. the problem was that the action to do is different for each card, and it's not abstracted (nor unified) so far. the higher abstraction will absorb such a difference. Takashi ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php