Re: [Cdrdao-devel] gcdmaster changes for 3/8/01

[Manuel C. <ll...@ja...>]

Andreas Mueller wrote:
>>Why don't we use a fixed timeout for playing instead of the idle timeout ?
> 
> It would be almost impossible to find the correct timeout value. If it
> is too small the timout will come before the playing function has
> returned. It it is too big the playing will be jumpy. I think the
> idle signal is the right choice. What advantage would you expect from
> the fixed timout signal?

Do you mean the idle signal comes just when there is no buffer no play?

The two problems are: The application response (menus, ...) slows down 
when playing. And try this: zoom an audio project, play and then move 
the bar to show a new part, as the app is working the idle signal does 
not come fast enough and the sound cuts.

I will play with timeouts a bit. I don't fully understand how the audio 
is played, so I will thank any explanation. Perhaps creating a thread 
for playing is a solution...

>>Also, why are we doing this?:
>>
>>(now this is in AudioCDProject::AudioCDProject)
>>   soundInterface_ = new SoundIF;
>>   playBuffer_ = new Sample[playBurst_];
>>   soundInterface_ = NULL;
>>
>>we create a SoundIF and then we lost the reference... why?
>>
> 
> That's of course an error; probably an relict from some code changes.
> You can remove the allocation at this place.

Ok.

-- 
Manuel Clos
ll...@ja...

* Si no puedes hacerlo bien, hazlo bonito (Bill Gates)
* If you can't do it well, do it nice (Bill Gates)