Re: [Jack-Devel] RFC: jackd portnames

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:31:26AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
 
> I agree with the general goal here. The conflict I see is between
> using this as the push to implement a more general feature that JACK
> could really use, or just adopting a more fix-the-particular-problem
> approach that this patch represents.

I agree 100% with that comment on its own merits and not in particular
w.r.t. to the portnames issue. It's just a big shame that the same
attitude wasn't taken in other cases. Such as for the Jack Session
patch. In that case, some completely ad-hoc extensions were accepted
instead of going for a generic non-RT message passing mechanism wich
could have been the base layer for a session management protocol based
on it. Two measures and weights ? Based on what ?

Ciao,

-- 
FA

1320356112.13179_0.ltw:2,a <20111103213438.GC22868 at linuxaudio dot org>