Re: gsoc2013 octave audio system

[Vytautas Jancauskas]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 17 April 2013 16:35, Vytautas Jancauskas <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Honestly this was just a knee-jerk response to what I perceived as a
>> rude response to my efforts and excitement about what I see (saw) as
>> an interesting project.
>
> I hope you think the interesting project is Octave. Having audio
> working in Octave is but a tiny cog in a much larger machine. I am
> sorry you perceived my criticism of your project as rude, but I really
> don't think the work you've done so far is going in a useful
> direction.
>
> And again, if portaudio even exposes an interface for using pulse
> instead of abstracting it away, I'm not sure it's the best choice. Do
> the other libraries have better abstraction of the underlying audio
> system?
>
> - Jordi G. H.

PulseAudio is one of "devices" that PortAudio presents as available.
You can set that device to any other and none of the code will have to
be rewritten. As far as abstraction this is as good as you are going
to get. How is any library to guess which audio infrastructure to use?
The work I have done, as I said, is merely to get accustomed with oct
files and is not meant to be used in any way, however the basics are
all there I think. I really think you should read the discussion
before replying. That way things that are already said and argued
above won't have to be repeated. I am really more interested, as I
said again, and as most people here seem to agree on in implementing
audioplayer and audiorecorder classes from matlab. Fixing some broken
blocking playback functions that are already in octave is at most a
weeks work and I don't find it a good GSoC project.