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

remove "in" and "out" from "system" nodes #80

Closed
x37v opened this issue Mar 14, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #81
Closed

remove "in" and "out" from "system" nodes #80

x37v opened this issue Mar 14, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #81
Milestone

Comments

@x37v
Copy link
Contributor

x37v commented Mar 14, 2024

those aren't actually in the jack client name so they add confusion if you're trying to create/destroy connections

@x37v x37v added this to the 1.3.0 milestone Mar 14, 2024
@fde31
Copy link
Member

fde31 commented Mar 14, 2024

Fine by me but for clarification - where exactly are they causing confusing? If u map from UI to OSC cli? I assume u'd just want to have the display diff?

@x37v
Copy link
Contributor Author

x37v commented Mar 14, 2024

if i ssh in i can manage connections with jack_connect and the name "system-in" doesn't match what I can use on the commandline.
also, it doesn't match the names we have in the OSCquery json, for instance /rnbo/jack/info/ports/audio/sinks

@fde31
Copy link
Member

fde31 commented Mar 14, 2024

sure, we can just remove the display label. Internally in and out are basically used to distinguish between the two nodes in the graphs as I suspect u'd not expect the system I/O to be a single node.

Based on that I generally think trying to 1:1 map the UI / UX to whatever jack does is a bit of a rabbit-hole and potentially not the most obvious and effectively tailors for the dev experience (with jack knowledge) rather than the user.

Again, we can remove the display label here but I'd like us to be a bit more vary that this isn't jack and that that folks preferring the raw JSON state tree and Jack might just be pointed to that rather than expecting to have all things match 100% for an improved of the actual UI.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants