Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > Projects > Deprecated REAPER issue tracker > Closed Issue

"Close audio device when stopped and application is inactive" -> alias names not displayed on re-activate Issue Tools
issueid=1924 01-27-2010 04:40 PM
Human being with feelings
"Close audio device when stopped and application is inactive" -> alias names not displayed on re-activate

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=25034

-> enable "Close audio device when stopped and application is inactive"
-> alias your hardware output channels
-> resize Reaper so that you can click the desktop

-> now click the desktop (reaper closes the audio device)
-> now directly click the I/O button of a track

=> channel name aliasing isn't in effect (although the device is opened)




-> close the I/O dialog
-> open it again
=> now all outputs and names are properly shown

Issue Details
Issue Type Closed Issue
Project Deprecated REAPER issue tracker
Category GUI and graphics
Status Live With It For Now
Priority 10 - Lowest
Affected Version 3.21
Closed Version (none)
Yes votes 0
No votes 0
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)

01-27-2010 07:44 PM
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Cannot confirm, inputs are not shown here at all then and I would sort of expect that since the first click reactivates the device, which in this case also opens the selection dialog and that seems to be faster than the device can respond. If that's your daily usage scenario, don't let the device close.
Reply
01-29-2010 07:11 AM
Human being with feelings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steindork
which in this case also opens the selection dialog and that seems to be faster than the device can respond.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. Maybe this can be speeded up?
Reply
01-29-2010 08:43 AM
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
That's a difficult question. I guess that's all depending on the device and its driver and can't be changed from Reaper's side, so my next thought would be to conditionally delay passing the keystroke to the GUI or something along these lines but that's where probably cost/benefit questions come up.

The question is "how much racing car lightweightness (is that a word?) are we willing to give up for "padding" the application in order to make it foolproof, cater somewhat exotic usage scenarios etc.." Unlike racing cars, streamlining software and cutting off edges probably gains weight instead of losing some. Then I can imagine that devs are sometimes reluctant to add code that is not in the current focus of interest as bugfixing and adding related code increases the risk of software regression even more.

I guess that's a general problem with many of the minor issues you and others report and the decision whether or not that is a bug, an omission bordering on a bug, just an omission or a real nitpick - especially in the light of what I wrote above - is often really, really hard.
Reply
01-29-2010 09:27 AM
Human being with feelings
 
Of course, it's just a nitpick.
Reply
Reply

Issue Tools
Subscribe to this issue

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.