Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] more jack/qjackctl madness : some comments

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:23:07AM +0300, Nedko Arnaudov wrote:

> It is not intercepted. It is implemented. No hooking is made.
> jack_client_open() action is not modified. It behaves as expected, as
> documented in the API. jack server is autostarted.

It's not just a different implementation. It has side effects
that the original call does not have (starting a daemon),
and these side effects will have consequences later.

If this is not true then the new implementation is
actually  useless.

I would have no objection if you added e.g.

   jack_client_open_via_dbus()

leaving the original call as it is.

If that new call has some real benefits then client
authors will use it. What you do now is forcing it
down everybody's throat.

Yesterday evening I had a visitor, a very fine musician
who knows nothing about computers let alone programming.
Seeing the discussion on #jack he asked me what this was
all about. So I told him this little fiction:

Someone sets up a firm that provides a free service:
they enhance your life by removing things from your
home and disposing of them.

One day I return home and find some things have been
removed.

I go the manager of the free service and tell him:

- Listen, I don't want you to enter my home and 
  remove things uninvited.

- But then I can't do my job !

- So you are thieves ?

- No, no, no, we just provide a free service
  that enhances your life.


Ciao,

-- 
FA

Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

1242722836.2324_0.ltw:2,a <20090519083754.GC2951 at zita2 dot kokkinizita dot net>