Nedko Arnaudov wrote:
> Disconnect veto is needed too.
> We need veto callback unregistration too.
I'm not sure how useful this would be; you can't veto a client
exit()ing.
> Isn't single vetoer enough to solve current problems? If so, we can
> avoid overeneneering and make veto_connection callback registration
> succeed only once. I think the window manager approach in X11 is good
> enough. User chooses one patchbay supervisor (vetoer) and expects
> it to fulfil all his needs. At very minimum we should make single vetoer
> default behaviour and provide an option to jack server that enables
> multiple vetoers.
FWIW, I agree that X window managers are the appropriate model.
One client gets to be the final arbiter of all connections. If a
supervisor exists, any connection attempt becomes a request which is
reported to the supervisor.
The supervisor may make the requested connection, reject the request,
or make the connection to an alternative port (redirection).
Redirection would allow a "dumb" client which automatically connects
to the first two hardware ports to be connected at a more appropriate
point in the graph, and to allow redirection to "null" ports if you
don't want to allow the client to participate but don't want it to
quit due to an error (e.g. playing a video when you don't need the
sound).
--
Glynn Clements <
glynn@...>
_______________________________________________
Jack-Devel mailing list
Jack-Devel@...
http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org
