> On Fri, April 18, 2008 11:12, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:51:51AM +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
>> i'm sure the biggest problem here is the braindead snapshot feature which
>> doesn't do what you really want ootb. and the keyword here is the ootb;)
>>
>> suppose you have this connection scenario:
>>
>> client_a:out_1 -> client_b:in_3
>> client_a:out_2 -> client_b:in_4
>> client_a:out_3 -> client_b:in_2
>> client_a:out_4 -> client_b:in_1
>>
>> then the snapshot will make it like:
>>
>> socket_a -> socket_b
>> client_a client_b
>> out_1 in_1
>> out_2 in_2
>> out_3 in_3
>> out_4 in_4
>
> This example would suggest that the connection made are
> based on the lexicographical order of the ports, as they
> are displayed. But this is in general *not* the case.
>
> The snapshot seems to use the *unsorted* list.
>
> If client b has an additional port, let's say 'test',
> (it would be the 5th one in the list, after in_4),
> the connection made could as well be:
>
> socket_a -> socket_b
> client_a client_b
> out_1 test
> out_2 in_1
> out_3 in_2
> out_4 in_3
>
nope. the snapshot will list *all* ports oof the client, but it probably
will do it as unsorted as jack_get_ports() will hand it. that is, if
client_b has an additional port named "test", the snapshot result most
probably will be
socket_a -> socket_b
client_a client_b
out_1 test
out_2 in_1
out_3 in_2
out_4 in_3
in_4
> The same happens when you make the connections selecting
> the two apps instead of the ports: the order does not in
> general correspond to the one that is displayed.
>
> >From the user's point of view, the mapping is just random.
>
>> imho, the big question is not whether the patchbay model doesn't fit to
>> all purposes, but whether the current super-naive snapshot mapping is any
>> better than not having one :)
>
> I still faill to understand why the snapshot can't do what its name
> suggests it will do: make a copy of the existing connections.
>
> If a human user is supposed to be able to create a patchbay
> corresponding to a given set of connection, by folllowing
> some procedure, why can a piece of software not do the same ?
> In particular if said procedure is supposed to be simple and
> intuitive.
>
ah, is it simply because there is this one developer here who suffers from
some form of chronic procrastination ? :)
ciao
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
