Re: [Jack-Devel] libjack vs server [ was Re: stepping down

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Shirkey <[hidden]
> wrote:

>
> On Mon, February 1, 2016 7:39 pm, Kjetil Matheussen wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I am fairly confident that what is better for most users is having a
> >> well
> >> known point of control (e.g. cadence, qjackctl) to start and control
> >> JACK,
> >>
> >
> > And that's what I'm suggesting. One well known point of control, provided
> > by libjack, which every
> > client can use, if they want.
> >
>
> It's an interesting line of thought.
>
> What happens if the original app that was used to start the jack process
> is taken out either by force or error?
>
> The rest of the group needs to have a mechanism for keeping running.
>
> A server solves this problem by keeping jack as a seperate process that is
> not dependant on any other process to keep it alive.
>
> Can you expand on how you would solve this with library instead of a
> server?
>
>
Yes, that's an interesting programming challenge. It's probably very hard
to make this work decently, but the thing is that if you want to run several
clients at the same time, you will still have the option of starting a
"main client"
first, same way as you run jackd now. What I was replying to in this thread,
was if you want run a DAW, you very often only want to run one client, and
then you don't need to start jackd and qjackctl.

1454318776.21808_0.ltw:2, <CAC6niEKCio4+N6qBQpgfVMZyBjO=U8m6_TJQ2V3M=J4j=BTHNg at mail dot gmail dot com>