Re: DBus server control : description of 2 proposals

>>> 4) for clients autostart feature, control plugin can define a
>>> "jackctl_plugin_server_autostart" to be used in libjack.so JACK
>>> server
>>> starting code. If several installed control plugin have the
>>> "jackctl_plugin_server_autostart" , then one of them will be used
>>> (typically the first found one) . Thus having several installed
>>> control plugin with the autostart feature is potentially problematic.
>>
>> Indeed. Moreover, the issues that arise from "classic" plugin
>> (default?)
>> and "dbus" plugin both installed are same as with my proposal. Am I
>> right?
>
> This is not "classic" plugin indeed, if no control plugin with
> "autostart" feature is found, then fork-exec model is used.

>>> 5) the proposed packages scheme is the following:
>>>
>>> - a standard JACK2 package is defined; is contains "jackd,
>>> libjack.so, libjackserver.so headers, tools.... It is the exact same
>>> packaging as legacy JACK. It is then  supposed to be used with legacy
>>> controler like Qjackctl
>>>
>>> - an additional package contains "jackd_control_dbus.so" and
>>> "jack_control" DBus based controler to be installed on top of
>>> standard
>>> package. It is then supposed to be used with new DBus based
>>> controlers.
>>
>> This is in no way different from
>> http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/SuggestedPackagingApproach
>>
>> In both cases you have dbus stuff in one separate package. Reasons
>> behind "jackd" and "jackdbus/jackd_control_dbus.so" packages being or
>> being not installable simultaneously, are same for my and your
>> proposal.
>
> Well the biggest difference I see is that the "old" model IS the
> standard package and is here to stay. So guardians can keep the old
> way (even if they may have to deactivate PuleAudio to get entire
> control)
>
> The DBus package would then add DBus controler on top, assuming people
> will then use DBus based control tools (jack_control and others)