Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ladspa plugin GUI proposal
From: Benno Senoner (sbenno_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Fri May 26 2000 - 00:25:32 EEST
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Erik Steffl wrote:
> >
> > plus using the toolkit-process approach , we could
> > cover at least all gtk / Qt plugins for now, since
> > we can assume that Qt and gtk is installed on almost every
> > distro.
>
> that's downright ugly. plus all the plugins you use would have to use
> same gui or gui part (at least) of plugin would have to run as separate
> process (and have its own X connection).
Sorry you are misunderstanding me:
the gui-processes , are sort of plugins of the host.
THEY ARE OPTIONAL.
That means if in 5 years you invent your foobar toolkit,
just add such a toolkit-helper and EXISTING hosts
will able to use plugins made with the foobar toolkit.
The host treats the toolkit-helper as a black box with well
defined control interfaces (like the LADSPA ports)
plus if you have Qt,gtk, and motif plugins running, regardless
of the number of loaded plugins, you are running 3 = THREE
threads/processes , which doesn't weigh much on the
60-70 processes running on an average Linux desktop box.
( just do a: ps auxw | wc ).
>
> > Of course the DSP only .so file is a vaild point for
> > headless servers.
> > The idea of processing on one box , while doing
> > GUI stuff on another will be come very likely and
> > we need to prepare the road for this.
>
> ??? you can do that with any X program... but you know that so what do
> you mean?
I mean: don't assume the presence of X.
I want to run LADSPA on a Beowulf running on a POSIXish *NIX
(no X11 here, sorry :-) ),
and controlling it from a generic desktop PC.
The simple separation of GUI and DSP code will allow this.
Benno.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 26 2000 - 04:33:39 EEST