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

PrevNext  Index
DateSat, 17 Dec 2011 04:20:57 +0100
From torbenh <[hidden] at gmx dot de>
To[hidden] at lists dot jackaudio dot org
In-Reply-ToFons Adriaensen Re: [Jack-Devel] The Situation(s) With JACK
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:32:32PM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:07:15PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Fons Adriaensen <[hidden]> wrote:
> > > Still maintaining it for all those platforms means extra work,
> > > and less time for real development.
> > >
> > > You yourself suggested in your original post that Jack's development
> > > should be driven by user requirements. Now ask yourself who are your
> > > users. I bet they are 90% Linux. And those have no interest at all
> > > in any Windows/xxx/yyy version. Go for it if you have spare capacity.
> > > Or make it a GSOC project. But don't waste any time on it otherwise.
> > > Even it that hurts.
> > 
> > JACK *already* runs on Windows. Stephane took care of this.
> 
> Jack2 runs on Windows. Jack1 doesn't. And it seems rather clear
> that you don't see the Jack2 code as a basis for the future. If
> you would then the 'Berlin path' should have been taken years
> ago and it wasn't. Given that
> 
> * you and Torben don't see Jack2 as the future basis,

i am out.
so my view is probably irrelevant now.


> * Grame has no good reason to abandon Jack2 for an 
>   alternative C++ version,
> 
> it seems that you are condamned to either
> 
> 1. change your ideas about the Jack2 code base and abandon
>    Jack1 (unlikely),
> 2. or go on with Jack1 as it is,
> 3. or create a C++ version separate from the Grame one,
>    starting either from zero or from the Jack1 code base.
> 
> In cases 2 and 3, you don't have Windows support, and my point is
> that you shouldn't waste time on it until at least the current
> crisis has ended and the existing problems on *Linux* (such as
> distros being driven to force one or the other version on users)
> have been solved. That is just a matter of defining priorities.

whats the point with (2) ?
if we dont merge the tschack engines core, we dont have SMP support.
until this actually happens, there is no real reason, to continue
messing with jack1. 
however... i dont see this happening,
because i dont see paul maintaining the tschack engine on his own.

(3) is too far away... still dont see any people taking it.

> 
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> -- 
> FA
> 
> Vor uns liegt ein weites Tal, die Sonne scheint - ein Glitzerstrahl.
> 
> 
> Jack-Devel mailing list
> [hidden]
> http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org

-- 
torben Hohn
PrevNext  Index

1324092074.12245_0.ltw:2,a <20111217032057.GB853 at siel dot b>