Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Evaluate correct naming for internal clients (which are not drivers) #63

Open
dvzrv opened this issue Jan 21, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Evaluate correct naming for internal clients (which are not drivers) #63

dvzrv opened this issue Jan 21, 2022 · 0 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested

Comments

@dvzrv
Copy link
Collaborator

dvzrv commented Jan 21, 2022

It seems the (unwritten?) convention about internal clients vs. drivers appears to be, that the drivers have a jack_ prefix and the internal clients do not.
Both types of shared object files usually (on Linux) live below e.g. /usr/lib/jack/.

With jack2 <= 1.9.20 and jack-example-tools we provide jack_inprocess.so, jack_internal_metro.so and jack_intime.so. If these are not in fact drivers, they should be renamed (stripped of their jack_ prefix).

Somewhat related and more of a discussion topic:
Would it make sense to have a specific prefix for all internal clients (e.g. internal_), so that they can be clearly distinguished?

@dvzrv dvzrv added bug Something isn't working documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested labels Jan 21, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant