Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: LADSPA GUI
From: monty (fowlkes_AT_lenin.dabney.caltech.edu)
Date: la maalis 11 2000 - 18:58:40 EST
> As this interaction normally *has* to be thread safe and should
> support connections between different processes, a suitable API will
> be needed anyway. If this API is in fact the same API that is used
> for interconnecting plugins, I don't see where the large/fine grain
> distinction is.
this would be the fine grained case.
large grain can certainly be implemented
with fine grain. the problem i see is
in the details of packaging and plugin
reuse (hence the quasimodo module/scripting
thread). the quasimodo approach (at least
in it's current state) certianly seems
to recognize different granularities
(modules vs. opcodes vs. inlineopcodes).
the question is how we can get away
without all this structure/overhead.
> Most plugins have internal signals that would be *very* useful to
> control other plugins with, but due to the restrictions of VST and
> DirectX hosts and plugins, this cannot be done. Instead, other
> plugins or clumsy work-arounds are needed to get the job done.
so i guess i've changed course
on this :) i'm starting to buy
in the dream of a comprehensive
yet simple plugin interface. in
particular, i very much agree with:
> A useful interface is very much a matter of cutting where there is
> least complexity in the interaction. This is how you get abstraction
> and flexibility for free. Leaving the UI communication part out of
> the API is, as I see it, doing it wrong, as it is a problem that
> *does* have to be solved anyway, and solving that the right way while
> at it, eliminates quite a few problems.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : su maalis 12 2000 - 09:14:06 EST