Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] No IPC in LADSPA?!
From: Iain Sandoe (iain_AT_sandoe.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2000 - 12:15:38 EEST
>>Catching up on this weekend's LAD postings, I just became aware that
>>LADSPA will not support IPC. I personally dislike plugins and prefer
>>standalone apps communicating over IPC whereever possible, since it
>>means more freedom for the end-user to mix and match what he
>>personally considers to be the best at each task.
>
> Hmm. Not a Cubase or Logic user, eh ? Those guys seem pretty happy to
> "mix and match" at the plugin level, rather than the application one.
This is not *strictly* true... for several reasons:
- The end-users don't have too much say in what's offered - there's a
certain need to "get on with it" with the best available.
- The internal workings of some of the applications is almost certainly a
model based on separate co-operating entities... this is just hidden from
the "musician user".
- People like Opcode did/do have multiple-app-based solutions for sound
editors/patchers/midi apps. VST still does interact with these when using
Opcode as the midi bay manager.
- You often find yourself cutting/pasting (or using intermediate files)
between your favourite apps.
- Re-wire & the like ?
I have implemented several large real-time acoustics processing systems
using IPC and time-stamped data-flow models. It generates a wonderful
tidiness in the implementation... with one part of the implementation doing
just one job - very re-usable code friendly.
Oops... back on the requirements-based design trail again ;-)
Iain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 28 2000 - 12:44:54 EEST