On Thu, 28.05.09 12:31, Patrick Shirkey (pshirkey at boosthardware.com) wrote: > > On 05/28/2009 05:15 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Thu, 28.05.09 04:53, Patrick Shirkey (pshirkey at boosthardware.com) wrote: >> >> >>> I think it is useful that you have the internal api calls so dbus is not >>> a requirement for communicating with PA. >>> >> >> I am sorry to inform you that eventually PA will use D-Bus for client >> communication too. Already now building PA without D-Bus is not really >> supported anymore (read: noone bothers to check if those builds still >> compile). > > Thanks for the heads up. There is no desire to use an api that is not > going to be future proofed. Would you consider having a "pajackcontrol" > app that uses dbus to communicate with pa and provides the existing api > hooks to jack so that legacy jack and non dbus jack can still signal pa > to play nicely? Nothing is future proof. I never made guarantees of API/ABI stability, nor will ever make any. The full switch to D-Bus won't happen anytime soon. Also, if we swicth we'll keep the current protocol around for quite some time. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
