Re: Jack event API - decision needed

Mark Brown
2011-06-28T16:35:29Z

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 05:27:15PM +0100, David Henningsson wrote:

> As such, it makes the most sense for me to continue working on the
> existing input layer API for the time being. If or when a new API is
> announced and finished, rewriting the pulseaudio patches to target
> that API will probably make sense. But we're not there today, and
> the time schedule for getting there is unknown.

> If upstream udev/PulseAudio would be willing to merge my (existing
> and upcoming) patches, I would appreciate that, as I believe that
> would make both our lives easier. If not, well at least make a note
> that I /tried/ to do things the right way, and to make everybody
> happy - which is not always possible.

FWIW I tend to agree that pragmatically it'd make a lot of sense to
support the current kernel interfaces in userspace even if we're also
going to decide to deprecate them, if only for the deployment reasons
you mention.