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

Add ability to give a name to jack client #31

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mattpepin
Copy link

I have to interface with effects outside of mod-host, and having all those effect_* jack clients was getting confusing. Here's a pull request adding an optional argument to "add" command that allows specifying a name for the jack client.

Feel free to comment, reject, merge ;)

Thanks for mod-host, it's awesome.

@ericfont
Copy link

I was just about to make the same feature request. I see that the Travis-CI check failed due to some 404 error. I wonder if that was the showstopper or if there was another reason that such a feature hasn't been merged other than not being a priority.

I guess this is branch is probably stale. I would be happy to take a stab at making an updated PR if the original author or maintainers don't have time.

@falkTX
Copy link
Member

falkTX commented Jan 25, 2021

Now that jack2 has working meta-data, it is preferred that we use that instead of using custom names.
So then patchbays like qjackctl that can list clients/ports with meta-data, well, it will show them instead of the original name.

fps added a commit to OGFX/mod-host that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2022
@riban-bw
Copy link

riban-bw commented Jul 9, 2024

By "metadata" do you mean port aliases? I don't see a way to assign these in mod-host.

If you have a name conflict, e.g. running multiple instances of mod-host, the port names are not attributable to each instance, making routing challenging.

If we can't give plugins a custom name then they should have a reference to their controlling mod-host instance, e.g. effect_0.0.

I don't see that having an optional name parameter is a bad thing though!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants