Re: latest CVS commit

Paul Davis <[email protected]> writes:

>>This whole change is poorly timed and something of an overreaction.
>
> at some point recently, i was getting 1-2 bug reports every week from
> people who exported with ardour and then had terrible behaviour from
> JACK afterwards. providing a feature (freewheeling) that inevitably
> leads to poor performance for no apparent reason is not a good idea.

So now I'll be getting them and you won't.  Gee, I'm glad we got that
straightened out.  :-(

>>Meanwhile, there are significant JACK enhancements that will not be
>>widely available because of it.
>
> We have not done a new release of JACK for months when we could
> have. Even if this takes another month, which I seriously doubt, its
> really no different than the status quo that we've lived with for a
> while. 

We have not done a release because I've been busy with other things.
This change just exacerbates that problem.

(BTW, you forgot to update libjack/ChangeLog.)

> If you really want to burden the API with "jack_create_thread()" and
> jack_create_thread_legacy()", i am not opposed to that, but i think
> its a mistake. the broken one would need to be removed for 1.0 anyway,
> which is not far off according to most perspectives, i think.

Why would I propose such a silly idea?  What good would it do?

I was merely pointing out that things would work much better if we
changed the name, so there would be no jack_create_thread(), only
jack_client_create_thread(), (or whatever).  Then, programs could use
whichever version is available.

Changing the prototype but not the name is just a botch.
-- 
  joq


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click