On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 11:58 +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:10:53AM +0000, Colin Guthrie wrote: > > 'Twas brillig, and Jo?o Paulo Rechi Vita at 08/12/09 02:01 did gyre and > > gimble: > > > All Enlightenment is written in pure C (GNU 99). > > > > So if the consensus is C, is there really much point in wrapping up the > > libpulse c library with another c library? Would it really add that much > > shared code? > > Don't know how much of the Code needed in the GUIs is actually > implemented in libpulse. I didn't have any close look yet at all. > As someone who has been (slowly) writing a C# wrapper for libpulse with the initial purpose of providing a volume-control... I don't think there's much extra code that could be usefully added to libpulse for writing GUIs. It's currently pretty simple to do all the pulse interaction required. The only libpulse feature-requests I could think of are related to server event subscription, and would be: 1) The ability to attach more than one event callback, with per-callback event subscription flags 2) The ability to subscribe to events for a single sink/source/object. Both of these are trivially implementable on top of the existing libpulse, though. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 489 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/attachments/20091209/99da6835/attachment.pgp>
