[pulseaudio-discuss] New feature in the works: "volume sharing"
gmane at colin.guthr.ie
Mon Feb 14 03:45:12 PST 2011
'Twas brillig, and Tanu Kaskinen at 14/02/11 11:19 did gyre and gimble:
> On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 22:05 +0200, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> With this push based approach, you do loose some individual granularity,
>> but the net volume of the underlying h/w should be the same as your
> What granularity would I lose? I think your suggested logic would be
> quite equivalent to the one that I originally proposed.
>> The concern I have with the approach outlined, is that it adds
>> complexity to the core and I'm not 100% sure how far the chain can go
>> (e.g. can you have a filter-sink1->filter-sink2->filter-sink3->hw-sink
>> pipeline? - with a push model this is possible).
> It's possible with the pull model too - the filter sinks are always
> traversed recursively. About complexity - I haven't done a thorough
> analysis of your suggestion, but I would guess that it would be a little
> bit simpler. There would still be a significant amount of added
> complexity in the core, though. I'll finish the patch using the original
> logic first, and if you want, I can probably do another version to see
> how much the push model will differ.
I don't really want to create extra work for you, I'm just genuinely
unsure which would be considered a "cleaner" approach (or even if it
really matters at all!!)
Other opinions welcome :)
Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/]
Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/]
PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/]
Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss