[pulseaudio-discuss] [RFC] Exposing ports and profiles to clients

[Tanu Kaskinen]

On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 16:46 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
> Two different proposals (very drafty) on how to expose ports for 
> inactive profiles, dunno which one is better. The first one adds a 
> cross-reference struct which will repeat itself for every combination of 
> port and profile. The second one adds a profile list for every port. The 
> second one looks less ugly, but would bloat the network a little more as 
> that would make pa_sink_port_info include the profile list as well.

The first option feels somehow very unintuitive to me. I like the second
option better.

> Both proposals add port lists to the card. The internal structure for 
> this is coming soon to a patch near you.
> 
> Both patches can also be combined with a patch that would merge 
> pa_source_port_info and pa_sink_port_info into a single struct (for 
> simplicity).
> 
> Note: as some of you might remember, I tried adding a "ports" field to 
> the pa_card_profile struct, but that broke the ABI as pa_card has a list 
> that's depending on the size of pa_card_profile.

If adding a "ports" field to the pa_card_profile struct feels like it
would obviously be the best option, how would you feel about creating a
parallel version of the pa_card_profile struct with the design flaw
fixed? I mean pa_card_profile2. pa_card_profile would get deprecated,
but in order to keep backwards compatibility it would have to be kept
around. Any new features would get added to pa_card_profile2.

-- 
Tanu