Re: Cd Burning

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 14:31, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 09:28, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 02:42, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > 
> > > > My take on this cd burning thing is that we need a cd/dvd burning *library*,
> > > > not necessarily an application straight away. With a cd/dvd burning library,
> > > > we can do funky things in Nautilus, Rhythmbox, wherever.
> > > 
> > > Why does it have to be a library?  Why not just use a bonobo interface?
> > 
> > I think the correct question is - why use a bonobo interface ? While 
> > bonobo has it's merits, it's harder to justify using that over a lib.  So, 
> > while a lib is obviously a good thing to do here, bonobo might also be, 
> > but it's bonobo that should be proven over the lib and not the other way 
> > around.
> 
> Well, for one, CD burning would be better off in a separate process than
> the main app, just for the sake of retaining interactivity without the
> chance of buffer-underrun.  And, while threads can manage that, a bonobo
> interface would be more capable of queuing burning requests, no? 
> Something like if I tell Rythmbox to burn a Rock CD and an Anime
> Soundtrack CD, it would make both requests, those would get queued by an
> interface activated thru bonobo, which would burn, handle notification,
> etc. etc.

Riight. You can write a bonobo component with a library, you can't
(decently) write a library from a bonobo component. After you've written
the library, how much glue you fancy is up to you.

> Granted, I'm not in any way familiar with the intricacies of this stuff,
> so maybe I'm just babbling out my arse again... ~,^

OK. Wish death upon us next time, that will be safer. Bonobo is a nice
technology, but if you're not the one writing the code, it's not up to
you in any way.

For all I know, I wouldn't be writing a bonobo component for that, I'd
prefer a library interface, but that's just me.

Cheers

-- 
/Bastien Nocera
http://hadess.net