Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] GLAME supports LADSPA now.
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Tue May 23 2000 - 14:32:37 EEST
>Use libxml
I do use libxml, and frankly, it sucks. Its a great API to have as the
basis for something else, but the idea of using *it* as a generic
information retrieval system without an extra layer makes me ill. I
wasn't suggesting *not* using XML, merely that there should be a layer
above this.
>> * a tool to manipulate the catalog (add, delete, annotate, edit, etc.)
>> (somewhat optional)
>>
>> I would not like to have to deal with XML directly. If I could do
>> something this:
>>
>> struct ladspa_catalog_entry *foo;
>>
>> ladspa_catalog = new_ladspa_catalog (configuration->catalog_path);
>>
>> while ((foo = ladspa_catalog->get_entry())) {
>>
>> ... stick them in a GtkCList, whatever ...
>> }
>>
>> then I would be a very enthusiastic user. Having it be a standard
>> format with a standard API would be excellent.
>
>Well, with this proposed scheme you would be unable to provide host
>specific additions to the plugins/structure.
I don't understand this. The idea under discussion, as I understood
it, is a *standard* catalog of plugins. Its not intended to have any
host-specific stuff at all. I was assuming that it would be something
that many different LADPSA-using applications could use to determine
which plugins were around, how a user had classified them, etc.
> With XML we could define
>a standard base and let hosts provide additional information. I think
>the XML approach is more flexible than just another C-API.
XML as the underlying mechanism for an API is a great idea. I just
don't want to be making XML calls explicitly every time I do a lookup
from the catalog, and if I'm not going to do that, then by definition
I already have to have a "C-API" to wrap it in.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue May 23 2000 - 15:17:12 EEST