Subject: [linux-audio-dev] comments on benno's ideas
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2000 - 02:10:30 EEST
Benno asked about my:
>thoughts about the need usefulness of multichannel and multi-datatype
>support like the one in my sample implementation.
As I said on LAD, I think that multichannel stuff is a mistake. I
think it has little use in any real world configuration, and it adds
complexity to the API that while lightweight in terms of code costs,
is difficult for programmers just starting to use it.
The datatype stuff I am sort of agnostic about. I am pretty
sympathetic to the idea that we could use more than just a single data
type, but when I read your and other people's proposals, they leave me
wanting to go back to just "float". I think that this is probably
something for v2.0 or something like that.
>My personal opinion is that Richard puts too much emphasis on keeping
>the API as simple as possible ,while not looking at flexibility.
>We have to learn from the past: a good design will last for years (see Linux)
>and will avoid future incompatibilities and problems.
I don't believe this. I don't think that anyone really knows how any
of this stuff is supposed to work right now. We (including Digidesign,
Steinberg et al) are all experimenting with it. There is some sign
that the plugin approach is a good one, but as to the details of the
API - I think we're at least 2 years from having a good handle on how
a long-lived solution should look.
Thats why I support the notion that LADSPA (v1.0 at least) should be
really really simple. We can experiment with it, and see what we
think. Given that I don't think anyone on who has posted on LAD has
ever written a VST plugin, we're in a pretty weak position to comment
on whether or not multiple or single datatypes makes sense.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 28 2000 - 02:42:30 EEST