'Twas brillig, and Tanu Kaskinen at 14/02/11 11:19 did gyre and gimble: > On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 22:05 +0200, Colin Guthrie wrote: >> With this push based approach, you do loose some individual granularity, >> but the net volume of the underlying h/w should be the same as your >> approach. > > What granularity would I lose? I think your suggested logic would be > quite equivalent to the one that I originally proposed. > >> The concern I have with the approach outlined, is that it adds >> complexity to the core and I'm not 100% sure how far the chain can go >> (e.g. can you have a filter-sink1->filter-sink2->filter-sink3->hw-sink >> pipeline? - with a push model this is possible). > > It's possible with the pull model too - the filter sinks are always > traversed recursively. About complexity - I haven't done a thorough > analysis of your suggestion, but I would guess that it would be a little > bit simpler. There would still be a significant amount of added > complexity in the core, though. I'll finish the patch using the original > logic first, and if you want, I can probably do another version to see > how much the push model will differ. I don't really want to create extra work for you, I'm just genuinely unsure which would be considered a "cleaner" approach (or even if it really matters at all!!) Other opinions welcome :) Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
