David Chocholatý

> @davidchocholaty I'm sorry for taking so long to review this. If you are not otherwise busy in the meantime, it would be great if you could add some unit...

> Before I review any more code. I'd appreciate if you could incorporate the existing comments first. The code would already be a lot simpler if you can assume that...

> Also, can you share some of reasons again for not reusing or changing `EngineDelay` in the first place? Of course. For example for following reasons: - Use of ramping...

> > I would like to just point out the reason, why this condition is used. The process() method call by EngineEffectChain uses the call, that the input buffer is...

> Have you investigated using `mixxx::ReadAheadSampleBuffer` for this purpose instead? I think it would reduce much of the code complexity. In fact not. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but for...

> I'd propose to create a simple non-threadsafe ringbuffer (which uses a `mixxx::SampleBuffer`) to implement a FIFO queue. I really like that idea with a ring buffer. It looks like...

Just for information, the current new version doesn't contain the use of std::span and ring buffer for now due to it depends on more sophisticated code changes and they don't...

> I agree that the switch to `std::span` should be held kept separate, but you can still implement the ring buffer in this PR and then use it. I won't...

Thank you very much for the tip and research. Sounds really good to me and I think it follows our requirements. @Swiftb0y, what do think about that?

I agree too with our own solution and that it should be reusable in Mixxx. I would like to implement the structure with tests and benchmarks too of course.