Tanu proposed: > 3) Add a second volume control to streams, one which represents the > stream's own volume only, i.e. never flat volume. Applications that want > to avoid flat volume can use that volume control instead of the primary > volume control. > > Even if proposals 1 and 2 are implemented, I'd still like to implement > proposal 3 too, because it's simple (I need the second volume control at > server side anyway, and adding it to the client API is just a matter of > adding one field to pa_sink_input_info and pa_source_output_info) and > because it provides some new possibilities for applications: for > example, pavucontrol could have an option to not show flat volumes even > when flat volumes are enabled. The idea is well supplanted with a use case, but I think that this could use some more discussion. The potential problem with "just exporting" the field is that the proposal specifies only one additional volume factor with no clear ownership policy, and I am afraid that various agents (the server and the client) will fight over it. OTOH, especially if we design the API to avoid "set this extra volume to this value" operation and only allow relative changes, this may as well be a non-problem. Maybe, instead of having one extra volume control, we need to be able to create and destroy additional possibly-invisible volume controls on as-needed basis, with the final extra gain determined by the product of their volumes? E.g., one volume can be used for volume groups, one can be used for ducking when it is in effect, and one for client-specific needs. -- Alexander E. Patrakov
