RE: GNOME Sound Server, was Re: GNOME sounds - which component

[Colin Davis <cdavis thepentagon com>]

I believes it solves the initial problem, but as I said,
people are more likely to write to the ESD API to be compatible with
both in that case. 

Why not create a new, from scratch server, that uses the same API as
Esound, thus maintaining backwards, (and future) compatibility between
it's self, and Esound. I cannot see why this would not be the perfect
solution. Why add confusion by introduucing yet-another-api.

Let me make my self very clear here. 

WHY WOULD YOU ESOUND CODE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH ESOUND?

This is the best soution. Binary compatibility, with clear source.
Everybody wins.



Cody Russell wrote:


> 
> Elliot already stated in an earlier message that he would like for the new
> sound daemon to have an ESD API wrapper. This would solve the problem you
> just described.
> 
> Cody
> 
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Colin Davis wrote:
> 
> >   Would it not be possible to create a new sound server, but use the
> > Esound API, thus a wrapper is not needed, and people will coninue to
> > write to Esound, instead of having to choose.
> >   If this is not done, I fear people will just continue writing to
> > Esound, as that will work with this proposed server, and maintain
> > compatibility with Esound.
> >
> > Again, you said that the Esound code is poor. Is there anything that is
> > so terrible wrong it cannot be overlooked about it's API?
> >

>