[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [fluid-dev] FS2.0 proposal
From: |
Max Kellermann |
Subject: |
Re: [fluid-dev] FS2.0 proposal |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:33:38 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On 2009/03/02 21:20, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas <address@hidden> wrote:
> His first message had some valid complains, and a false assumption
> deduced from the observation that the CLI program doesn't exit when
> a MIDI song has finished. I've tried to answer politely pointing to
> the mistake, being rewarded with something I call arrogance.
I didn't want to waste any more time with that whole issue here, but
now I'm really wondering what you're talking about, so here is exactly
what I wrote:
On 2009/02/22 17:32, Max Kellermann <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 2009/02/22 11:25, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas <address@hidden> wrote:
> > For programs using the library, there is a function
> > fluid_player_join() that works like pthread_join() waiting until
> > the player terminates.
>
> It blocks, rendering it near to useless for me. I would have to
> create yet another thread, only to translate between
> fluid_player_join() and a non-blocking method.
I didn't explicitly admit that my assumption was wrong (simply because
it wasn't wrong). I was only wrong about the non-default behaviour of
the command line player. You pointed me to a function which is only
similar to what I was looking for, but which is not appropriate for
me.
I want to *check* if fluidsynth is finished playing a MIDI file, I
don't want to *wait* for it to finish. Please understand the
difference.
My response was purely technical, I fail to see any signs of
arrogance, insult or personal attack. I'm not interested in any
non-technical discussion.
Max
Re: [fluid-dev] FS2.0 proposal, Josh Green, 2009/03/01
Re: [fluid-dev] FS2.0 proposal, Josh Green, 2009/03/01