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

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. 


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?
> >


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]