Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] do YOU support LASDPA? (was Re: Linux Audio plugin API's: where arewe ?)
From: David O'Toole (dto_AT_qwsi.net)
Date: Mon Apr 10 2000 - 05:22:18 EEST
Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
> > 2. I would just have to reimplement the specialized tracker features on
> >top of LADSPA
>
> Legitimate point. But thats what code sharing tends to lead to. Unless
> you believe that OCTAL is the One True Way, and that all the good
??? I've never said this; if I believed it, I would be running around
trying to convince everyone they need to use this API, which I am not.
> Every so often, more sample data becomes available, or is
> needed. So, the basic plugin model is of a list of entry points
> to code that accepts and/or produces chunks of data.
>
> It doesn't get any more basic and general than that.
Yes, but some applications need more features. For instance, in Buzz,
generator machines are capable of having multiple tracks of sequence
data, representing individually controllable channels within a
generator. The user can add tracks dynamically during play. Hence the
Buzz API includes support for having multiple sets of concurrent
parameters. How would this be handled under LADSPA? If I would need to
extend it, why would I do this when the existing octal API does this
right now?
> Imagine if you were writing OCTAL for Windows. Would you want to
> support just the Buzz plugin API, or would it also make sense to
> support VST and/or DirectX as well ?
1. I wouldn't just use the Buzz API itself, as it isn't good enough
2. I would likely add VST support because of the many plugins available
> into my processing chain without having to whine to their makers'
> about doing a port to the Buzz API, or whatever.
Buzz supports other API's by providing wrappers; IIRC both VST 1.0 and
DirectX plugins can be hosted more or less transparently. This was done
fairly early on. All with zero additional host code. In my case, an
OCTAL plugin would provide a mediator between the OX_API host and, say,
a LADSPA plugin. If your efforts to bring VST hosting and plugins to
Linux are successful, I would consider adding VST support as well. (In
reality someone on the octal dev list would code up a wrapper plugin,
rather than me actually doing it.)
Through the use of wrappers, OCTAL may eventually support LADSPA
plugins. However, the OCTAL API will not get reimplemented on top of
LADSPA as you seemed to suggest in the first paragraph quoted at the top
of this message. I have to agree with the GLAME guy on this one.
> The fact that Buzz doesn't do this says more about Buzz's audience
> than the attractiveness of the idea, IMHO.
Hmm. What exactly do you mean by this?
---
@@@ david o'toole
@@@ dto_AT_gnu.org
@@@ www.gnu.org/software/octal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Apr 10 2000 - 07:52:26 EEST