On Wednesday, May 12, 2010, Paul Davis wrote: > > minimalist approach of Jack MIDI may be just another mistake in the > > opposite direction. > > if you can expand on what that direction might be, it could be useful. > > there are issues that i have with the JACK MIDI concept, but they are clear > and simple (and the diametric opposite of those with ALSA sequencer). > specifically: > > * ALSA sequencer is bad for synthesis because data arrives in the wrong > thread at the wrong time; its good for MIDI control because the data does > not arrive > in the RT process() thread > * JACK MIDI is good for synthesis because data arrives in the right > thread at the right time; its bad for MIDI control because the data arrives > in the RT process() thread This discussion about dry technical details don't really belong in this mailing list. Maybe you would prefer to transfer it to LAD? But on the other hand, the functional aspects are all on topic on this list, because what the users want is functionality, and I doubt that someone care too much if something is implemented in the kernel or in userspace, if it works well and there are applications fullfilling their needs. Jack MIDI is good for real time usage, specifically when using it to build real time MIDI synthesizers. Aside from MIDI controller applications, ALSA sequencer provides good queueing and scheduling, features very useful to create MIDI players. For this usage, event time units can be musical time instead of seconds or frames, for good tempo control and flexibility. Returning to the topic of PulseAudio, I want to praise their developers for the effort in keeping compatibility with the old esound daemon and supporting ALSA/OSS applications transparently; this has not been an obstacle to provide also a new native API. Regards, Pedro _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
