Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 11:50:12PM +0300, Nedko Arnaudov wrote: > >> Fons Adriaensen <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> I'll embrace LASH as soon as its authors bump up the >>> version number and convert it to OSC, and allow app >>> developers to use this directly instead of passing >>> through a library that doesn't fit in at all with the >>> architecture of my apps. It's actually *very close* >>> to being OSC, the effort required would be minimal. >>> >>> (posted almost the same a year ago) >> Do you talk about lash 0.5.x or about the new development, 0.6.x that >> uses dbus instead of custom protocol (and is not released yet)? > > Probably 0.5 then. > > Dbus is not the solution, it's not networked. The first app > I'd like to use LASH for uses four networked computers, three > of them headless, which is why I want a session manager. > Guess I'll have to brew my own then. For the record: AFAIK DBUS is perfectly capable of networked operation. As far as I know Arnold Krille already has it running networked for one of his experiments. It's a rather undocumented feature though, and I could be wrong. I didn't try it myself (yet). And even if it's not, there is no reason why a simple OSC<->lash bridge could not be built. IMHO that definitely beats writing a custom session manager. Greets, Pieter _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
