Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA Finalisation Deadline
From: Benno Senoner (sbenno_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Sat Mar 25 2000 - 20:40:22 EET
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Richard W.E. Furse wrote:
> I'm proposing finalisation of LADSPA version 1. This would give a solid
> baseline for programming, possible further development and/or possible use
> within MuCoS.
>
> If there are no significant *new* issues arising this week then I'll
> finalise the version 1 next weekend (2nd April 2000). We still need an
> introductory text on the API but I can produce this if push comes to shove
> and there's no deadline for the external docs anyway. Do people think the
> header file is adequately explicit to avoid confusion later?
Please wait until I will publish my extensions (24-48h) , so that we can discuss
about this.
I am sure that we will agree on a good solution.
>
> The only still-open question in my mind is whether or not to include a
> runAdding() method. This would require the addition of functions of the
> following form: runAdding(handle, samples) and setGain(handle, output port
> [NB!], gain). runAdding() is assumed to have implications for all output
> ports, audio or control. I think this is horrid and won't include it unless
> I get a good number of emails from developers whose non-vapourware software
> will run much slower if it isn't included ;-)
Steinberg are smart people, and if they included this (runAdd()) in VST1 a few
years ago, there has to be a reason. (in fact the reason is simple, it's called
increased performance due to better cache utilization).
Anyway IMHO, Richard is putting too much emphasis on the SIMPLE word,
and that can only hurt us later.
I am for a small percentage of less simple but a big percentage more flexible.
Benno.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Mar 25 2000 - 21:22:42 EET