Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux Audio plugin API's: where are we ?
From: Benno Senoner (sbenno_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Sat Apr 01 2000 - 19:31:25 EEST
On Sat, 01 Apr 2000, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
> >Adopt VST2.0/FreeST as a low-level common denominator API.
> >Rename LADSPA to be "Extended FreeST" and make it a superset
> >of VST2.0 (or if not a proper superset, make it compatible
> >enought that LADSPA hosts can host VST2.0 plugins
> >transparently).
> >
> >Host implementors could then pick one of two levels
> >of support, and plugin writers could use the base
> >VST API when that is sufficient, moving
> >to the more complex level of support only when
> >necessary.
>
> This was precisely my suggestion.
>
Yes this would be nice, in fact I had something similar in
mind for my LAD(S)PA version.
But I am trying to investigate a solution which is still
C compatible, and not only C++.
Because C-only programs would have a hard job to
run VST C++ plugins.
I think there are many simple C tools which want
to use LADSPA plugins. Therefore we should consider
the poor C-only folks. :-)
thoughts ?
PS: having actually a naming crisis for my project.
Should we call it Mucos or similar ?
Or still LADSPA ?
Richard , opinions ?
Any thoughts ?
Benno.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 01 2000 - 20:20:06 EEST