Re: [Jack-Devel] The Situation(s) With JACK

On 12/09/2011 07:54 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Paul Davis <[hidden] 
> <mailto:[hidden]>> wrote:
>
>     This is my list of fundamental requirements for the next stage of
>     JACK:
>
>
> All sounds very promising, and indeed thought out. I'd just like to 
> mention the topic of JACK transport and tempo changes, tempo maps, and 
> time signatures
>
> I know this is a topic that has been discussed in the past but I feel 
> it worth keeping in mind at this time. I don't have a suggestion as 
> how to approach it however... -Harry

Personally I found the jack transport specification always lacking in 
this respect. IMHO a better approach would be to just privide a very 
simple protocol, which is just framebased and provides just the states 
STOPPED, RUNNING and a shared frame number. Making assumptions about 
musical time, etc., is too restrictive.

To provide musical time interoperation between different audio apps an 
independent protocol could emerge and once it has matured one could 
again think about integrating it into jack transport..

Flo

>
> 
> Jack-Devel mailing list
> [hidden]
> http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org

1323474445.32616_0.ltw:2,a <4EE29E04.6030101 at gmx dot net>