Re: [Jack-Devel] ladish + jack autoconnect

Paul Davis <[hidden]> writes:

> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Robin Gareus <[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 12/25/2011 12:22 AM, Nedko Arnaudov wrote:
>> [..]
>>> Now that I think of it, I dont recall proposing to implement this option
>>> for jack1. So here I do it:
>>>
>>> I'd like to implement new jack1 server option (exposed in jackd too) with
>>> value that defaults to current behaviour. The option (kind of enum) has
>>> four other possible values. In total:
>>>
>>>  * dont restrict self connect attempts (default)
>>>  * ignore (dont fail, nop) all self-connect requests
>>>  * fail all self-connect requests
>>>  * ignore self connect requests to other clients only
>>>  * fail self connect requests to other clients only
>>>
>>> If something in my proposal is not clear, please let me know. I'll try
>>> to clarify it.
>>
>> ..now that the mailing-list and jackaudio.org infrastructure is working
>> fine again..
>>
>> would the jack-maintainers care to comment on this proposal?
>
> i've had this discussion with nedko on IRC before i stopped being
> prepared to discuss things with him (and why would i do that? "the
> entire JACK API has been shit right from the start". no need to
> discuss that further then).

You don't have evidence of me saying this (and you even used
quotes). What I said was "i disagree with most of the jack api and i've
told this in public":

Feb 08 18:09:52 nedko	i disagree with most of the jack api and i've told this in public
Feb 08 18:10:18 las	nedko: then go and write your own fucking version of it and stop wasting our time complaining about here. for fuck's sake
Feb 08 18:10:22 *	las (~[hidden]) has left #jack ("Leaving")

Full context:
http://nedko.arnaudov.name/las-nedko-jack-irc20110208.log

What you maybe miss here is that I was talking about jack connect veto
proposal, not voting.

> the proposal has some merits i think. i don't think its very useful
> for most use cases, but in some reasonably likely ones, some of these
> options would be very useful to have. it would integrate quite well
> with JACK Session, and enables that and ladish to do what they want
> without having to modify clients, which is a good thing. but ... to be
> actually useful, i suspect that this option needs to be controllable
> in a running server, not just at startup.

Do I get it right that you will accept patch that adds both startup
option and makes it controlable in a running server?

-- 
Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: 5D1B58ED>

1325348805.4454_0.ltw:2,a <8762gwemi0.fsf at arnaudov dot name>