Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ladspa plugin GUI proposal
From: Erik Steffl (esteffl_AT_pbi.net)
Date: Wed May 24 2000 - 23:54:30 EEST
Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>
> > there is a design choice to make:
> >
> > 1) host is (can be) generic, all application specific code is in
> >plugins
> >
> > 2) host is some specific application that uses plugins for very
> >specific (=dsp) purposes.
> >
> > I would advocate choice 1), which means that the plugin API will be
> >more complex but very useful, because you could easily build any
> >application by simply connecting various plugins. that's why I advocate
> >suport for ports of various types etc...
>
> The problem with this is that people will no longer share plugins in
> their apps that fit (2). For example, I am adding LADSPA support to
> ardour, and if plugins weren't *just* specific DSP "things", this
> would be hopeless.
why?
because of increased complexity of LADSPA in case 1?
even if LADSPA goes in direction as described in 1) there would be no
obstacle to write a specific application (like ardour) and allow plugins
at the same time. or change ardour to be plugin, or create set of
plugins that you could use to build ardour etc... these are just a few
examples of how one could use added flexibility. it might be too much
though...
or in other words: what I ment by 1) is that LADSPA would be designed
in a way that allows generic host to be written, not that generic host
would be the only host possible.
erik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu May 25 2000 - 01:47:07 EEST