On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 10:47 +0000, Colin Guthrie wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Tanu Kaskinen at 28/10/13 19:55 did gyre and gimble: > > On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 17:50 +0000, Colin Guthrie wrote: > >> Hi Guys, > >> > >> I made a few notes about this meeting. Feel free to add CC's as you see > >> appropriate. Also please feel free to correct my version of events just > >> in case I've put something down incorrectly. > > > > Awesome, thanks for the notes! Any objections to sending this to the > > pulseaudio-discuss and murphy-dev lists too? > > Of course, no problem at all. > > >> Generally, there was some degree of concern over the number of new core > >> concepts needed to support this and some questions were asked about > >> whether some parts are really internal to the routing algorithm > >> *implementation* itself, rather than the concept of routing algorithms > >> as generally supported in PA. We all agree we need a better routing > >> infrastructure, so the only question is really how many of the concepts > >> are leaks from the current Murphy-based implementation vs. genuinely > >> useful in the general case. > > > > I got the criticism about routing groups - if there are other concepts > > that you find questionable, please let me know. > > I think this is more just a "general worry". There are a lot of new core > concepts being introduced to achieve the end result and from the queries > and questions asked, I got the impression that the people with PA > background present were somewhat nervous about this, but perhaps I > picked up and generalised things too much? > > At the moment, the routing is very simple. Too simple (obviously!) but > at least it keeps it manageable and understandable right now. I guess my > main concern is that it will turn even very simple routing > configurations into a very complex beast. > > I asked during the meeting about if "connection" core concept was > needed. This was justified that it would be needed to do things like > loading loopback modules, combine modules or remap modules to join > things up as needed. This is a reasonable justification, but after some > reflection I cannot see how this can be a core concept as it has to have > implicit knowledge of the modules. If core is loading specific modules, > then those modules are not really modules any more as they are needed by > the core. > > I guess I'm just still not super comfortable with the need to have so > much exposed outside of the implementation module itself. > > Again, as I've not done much PA dev for a while now, my opinion should > carry little weight, but after more reflection, I do feel the core > changes should be kept as limited as possible, with the minimum of hooks > and interfaces needed and the rest kept as private as possible to the > implementation itself. > > Again, just my opinion, so feel free to ignore it :) > > Col
