[wdmaudiodev] Re: Which audio model is best

  • From: Tim Roberts <timr@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:37:05 -0800

Basileios Bu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Tim Roberts <timr@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:timr@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > No.  Both architectures work, and are likely to continue to work at
> > least through this decade.  If you are comfortable with wavecyclic, I
> > say stick with it.  It is my personal opinion that AVStream is cleaner,
> > but as you say, there will be a learning curve.  That's not an
> > insignificant consideration.
> I'm just curious as to what you meant when you called AVStream cleaner
> than wavecyclic.  Does this translate into something useful for the
> audio driver?  Also, I'm not sure you can answer this, but which model
> is better documented wrt to audio?

Well, I'm  being fuzzy because it's very much my subjective opinion. 
When I look at a wavecyclic driver, I see a large amount of overhead
code that is not directly related to the task I'm trying to solve, code
that it the same for every wavecyclic driver.  There's much less of that
in AVStream.  The framework is handling the overhead stuff, with
opportunities for callbacks at the appropriate points.  If I don't care
about a callback, I don't have to implement it.

Plus, almost all of the tedious property handling is done by defining
data static structures, rather than having a long series of nested
switch statements.

Tim Roberts, timr@xxxxxxxxx
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

Other related posts: