On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:25 AM, MarcO'Chapeau <marco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:36:11 +0400, alex stone <compose59@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Marc, >> hehe, and the waltz continues. So let's assume that pulse isn't being >> considered here as part of the dbus paradigm intent . > > Hi again. > > Ok, let's stop dancing then :) Let me try to explain that dbus here is not > the center of what has changed in JACK2. i'm just going to trying to summarize even more from what Marc has said. There are two issues that have become tangled up in this recent email flurry. 1) the current D-Bus support can be mishandled by packagers and this can lead to problems for some users 2) the only actual implementation that uses the control API is based on D-Bus, and this is not a source of happiness and cake for everyone. There is nothing stopping other implementations (pure C, OSC, python etc) using the control API, but at this time, nothing else does. Stephane has attempted to correct problem (1) in svn with warnings etc. to packagers. --p _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
