Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] do YOU support LASDPA? (was Re: Linux Audio plugin API's: where arewe ?)
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Mon Apr 10 2000 - 20:11:17 EEST
>> 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.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth.
>> 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?
Well, if its something that really should be part of a generic API,
then LADSPA should handle it. If not, then I agree with you.
>> 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?
I wasn't aware that Buzz support VST plugins. My comment was saying
something to the effect of "apparently Buzz users don't see the
utility in being able to route Buzz output through some of the cool
VST plugins that are out there". Clearly, I'm wrong about this.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Apr 10 2000 - 23:22:36 EEST