User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Choosing between portability and innovation

Choosing between portability and innovation

Posted Mar 3, 2011 19:33 UTC (Thu) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103)
In reply to: Choosing between portability and innovation by jensend
Parent article: Choosing between portability and innovation

Uh, you got it all backwards. PA has been portable from the very beginning. I am pretty sure that this fact didn't improve the API in any way, in fact it's not really visible in the API at all. This completely destroys your FUD-filled example, doesn't it?

I think the major problem with the PA API is mostly it's fully asynchronous nature, which makes it very hard to use. I am humble enough to admit that.

If you want to figure out if your API is good, then porting won't help you. Using it yourself however will.

From your comments I figure you have never bothered with hacking on graphics or audio stacks yourself, have you?


(Log in to post comments)

Choosing between portability and innovation

Posted Mar 3, 2011 22:59 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Still, I think the asynchronous API was the right approach, if just because (as the PA simple API shows) it is possible to implement a synchronous API in terms of it, but not vice versa.

Mandatorily blocking I/O is a curse, even if nonblocking I/O is always trickier to use. Kudos for making the right choice here.

Choosing between portability and innovation

Posted Mar 4, 2011 4:19 UTC (Fri) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link]

I'm no expert in this area, but I thought I remembered people grumbling that Pulse was cross-platform in name only and that it wasn't just a lack of people putting in time to make it work but also a number of design issues. I could be wrong. My main example here is ALSA, not Pulse.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds