Closed rncbc closed 7 years ago
imho. these "in"/"out" suffixes shouldn't be there at all. it adds confusion let alone the way they are now --which this very pull-req#36 mitigates--it's plain wrong.
why do you think they should be swapped? Input means audio is coming in, and output means that audio is going out. You read from an input, and write to an output. Swapping them doesn't really make sense.
first, this is not audio ports. but that's not the point here anyway,
second, the "in" suffix should always be there on ports that are effective flagged/typed as JackPortIsInput
(writable/input ports); likewise, the "out" suffix should be on ports that are JackPortIsOutput
(readable/output ports).
third, just like that machine(program) vs. human(user) POV naming convention and confusion is better off NOT to be engraved as visible text to humans, i actually proposed for the "(in)" and "(out)" literals to get dropped altogether, that from alsa_midi provided port names--they add nothing but this kind of programmer vs. user dialectics.
and fourth, last but not least, the way those suffixes are now, are plain wrong, misleading and piles up fire to the confusion; have you ever looked to them on a connection-manager UI? say qjackctl, at all?
cheers
I agree that they should be swapped.
If we drop the suffixes, then these two ports:
alsa_midi:Midi Through Port-0 in
alsa_midi:Midi Through Port-0 out
become indistinguishable based on name. Since JACK offers quite a number of port-related capabilities based on name, I don't see how it can be OK to end up with ports that use the same name. In fact, it isn't even legal.
My previous comment reflects the fact that ALSA MIDI port names have been "cleaned" of their ALSA sequencer-style port/client components.
I've applied and pushed the in/out switch.
Swap alsa_midi slave driver port-name suffixes: