On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 04:52:48AM -0400, Ryan C. Gordon wrote: > Also, in terms of SDL doing the right thing, I assume it should favor > PulseAudio over arts and esd, but we generally try to favor real > hardware over sound daemons when we can...I know PulseAudio lists "low > latency" in its feature set, but too many years of fighting esound has > made me skeptical that we should favor PulseAudio over ALSA when > choosing an audio target. Obviously, in that case, if ALSA isn't > available (user has no direct permission to hardware but PulseAudio > does, or ALSA can't handle multiple opens and PulseAudio has the > device), we can fallback to PulseAudio, or it can be forced by the user. Note that PulseAudio has an ALSA plugin, which redirects output from ALSA applications to the PulseAudio daemon. This plugin is pretty popular with PulseAudio users, so if SDL were to try ALSA first, it would always succeed and the native PulseAudio driver would likely never actually get used. -- CJ van den Berg mailto:cj at vdbonline.com xmpp:cj at vdbonline.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/attachments/20070418/1a5ed993/attachment.pgp>
