Subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: LADSPA types, etc. + defending simplicity
From: Erik Steffl (esteffl_AT_pbi.net)
Date: Thu Mar 30 2000 - 20:53:02 EEST
Alexander Ehlert wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Erik Steffl wrote:
>
> > since there is going to be at least an order more plugins I think that
> > hosts should be more complicated and the code that might require
> > optimisation should be in host. there is no reason to have the same code
> > in all plugins when host can provide the functionality.
>
> Did you have a look into our code? I guess not :) Otherwise you would have
> seen that there's not much code repetition, except that a plugin has to
> check how many ports are actually connected, which parameters are set and
> code to actually fetch some data from an input port. I can't imagine
> something more basic. With our approach we just put the "intelligence"
> into the API not into a host. GLAME plugins are more like small apps
> communicating via a given API using IPC.
>
> After following the "defending simplicity" thread, I think most of the
> people are not sure were to put the complexity in: host? plugins? api?
the text you quoted above was in response to "you're just shifting
complexity around", all I said is that the complexity should be in host,
not in plugins. I did not ment to suggest that existing plugins are
necessarily comlex (I don't remember the e-mail exactly so it might have
been misleading, therefore this explanation).
erik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 01:08:14 EEST