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

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Tobias Hoffmann
<[hidden]> wrote:

>> You're also ignoring the need to have a single netjack streaming
>> protocol,
>
> I don't think we're there yet, i.e. neither netjack1 nor netjack2 is
> sufficient for all the use cases. They both look to me like
> prove-of-concepts that demonstrate certain things, but lack through
> engineering in other respects. E.g. how to accommodate future extensions
> (header-length fields, other codecs [than celt,float], ...).
>
> And while it is a nice thought of having only jack with exactly one
> perfectly tailored network protocol, reality is not so perfect. We should
> not forget that there are other network protocols out there (AVB, Dante,
> etc.) that some might want to see interoperating with jack at some point in
> the future. And there are people out there that would be willing to connect
> via netjack, but without using jack at one end -- and need good
> documentation of the wire format.  From this perspective, and thinking of
> possible dependencies like DNS-SD, I'm even not too sure, if network
> protocols (esp. the "network manager" part should be "designed into the jack
> core".
>
>
> Another thing that has been brought up in the discussion is a standardized
> driver API for all implementations. IMHO this could have a big impact on
> jacks future.

OK, I agree with all that you've said here. So, let me put it another way:

  * when users ask how to stream audio over a LAN or a WAN with JACK,
       there needs to be a concise, understandable and clear answer
       for them.

I'm not really invested in any particular way to provide an answer to
that question, but we *do* need that answer. Right now, we don't have
it.

1323731891.31474_0.ltw:2,a <CAFa_cKmAkQBORF2X-B4rjY5rE4z=BA3Hj34Z+y0=BGMq1um_xA at mail dot gmail dot com>