|
»
« Return to Thread: [proposal] connection veto callback
Re: [proposal] connection veto callback
by Fons Adriaensen-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 05:35:46PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@...> wrote:
>
> > It is the
> > absence of coherent design. And that can even hit a single application
> > if things get added to it that provide a level of functionality that
> > was never considered at the start. It is this and nothing else that
> > is currently hitting Jack, and everything that depends on it e.g. LASH.
> > Jack has reached a level where it can't be improved on except by
> > changing things in non-compatible ways, for the simple reason that
> > the things we want to add now were ignored when it was originally
> > designed. There are limits to incremental design, and we are just
> > hitting them.
>
> I disagree with everything you have written in this paragraph.
> Absolutely and totally. I believe you are sensitive to and observing
> social issues with the JACK development "team" and mistaking them for
> technical issues. I believe this is a huge mistake even IF those
> social issues are also rather significant.
On the contrary. I have been ignoring any 'social' aspects
and been quite blunt lately. Not only in this thread but in
others as well. Not because I enjoy acting like that - and I
like the people I know here too much to be nasty to them - but
because IMHO the technical issues should not be obscured by
the social ones.
But we can agree to disagree. For me there have been (and there
still are) a number of Jack related issues such that if I look
at the complete picture the conclusion is that it would be a
good thing to start thinking about something that at some time
could become Jack N (N > 2) and that would include some radical
changes.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia รจ troppo stretta e lunga.
_______________________________________________
Jack-Devel mailing list
Jack-Devel@...
http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@...> wrote:
>
> > It is the
> > absence of coherent design. And that can even hit a single application
> > if things get added to it that provide a level of functionality that
> > was never considered at the start. It is this and nothing else that
> > is currently hitting Jack, and everything that depends on it e.g. LASH.
> > Jack has reached a level where it can't be improved on except by
> > changing things in non-compatible ways, for the simple reason that
> > the things we want to add now were ignored when it was originally
> > designed. There are limits to incremental design, and we are just
> > hitting them.
>
> I disagree with everything you have written in this paragraph.
> Absolutely and totally. I believe you are sensitive to and observing
> social issues with the JACK development "team" and mistaking them for
> technical issues. I believe this is a huge mistake even IF those
> social issues are also rather significant.
On the contrary. I have been ignoring any 'social' aspects
and been quite blunt lately. Not only in this thread but in
others as well. Not because I enjoy acting like that - and I
like the people I know here too much to be nasty to them - but
because IMHO the technical issues should not be obscured by
the social ones.
But we can agree to disagree. For me there have been (and there
still are) a number of Jack related issues such that if I look
at the complete picture the conclusion is that it would be a
good thing to start thinking about something that at some time
could become Jack N (N > 2) and that would include some radical
changes.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia รจ troppo stretta e lunga.
_______________________________________________
Jack-Devel mailing list
Jack-Devel@...
http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org
« Return to Thread: [proposal] connection veto callback
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
