Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ladspa plugin GUI proposal
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Fri May 26 2000 - 18:21:39 EEST
>X11 has a swallow ability, too. I don't think running N toolkits in one
>process is really what you want. I also don't think that LADSPA should
>standarize how GUIs should look (e.g. using XML) or be built. Things like
>aRts will definitely have sophisticated solutions for solving this, and
>if LADSPA makes more assumptions than absolutely necessary about GUIs, it
>will be difficult to get things working together.
clearly, the picture is still not getting across.
LADSPA will NOT dictate GUI policy. Any host can choose to do ANYTHING
it wants to with a plugin's user interface. If aRts thinks it has the
best possible way of building the UI for a plugin, it is completely
free to do so. Plugins may NOT assume that any of their ideas about
their own UI will be honored.
However, LADSPA-GUI will PROVIDE GUI capabilities to plugins and hosts
that wish to request them (plugins) or use them (hosts).
Note also, please, that the XML proposal doesn't include any
specifications for how anything *looks*. It only includes
specifications for where to put named pixmaps, AND it implies certain
GUI behaviour (responses to mouse motion, button presses, keys, etc.)
If a plugin uses the XML stuff, and the host decides to support it,
then the appearance is entirely up to the plugin. AGAIN: the host is
free to completely ignore this stuff.
Several people have already out the problems of assuming that a host
or specified-widget-set can provide a decent GUI for certain kinds of
plugins. It will be interesting to see if aRts can solve these sorts
of problems.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 26 2000 - 19:58:27 EEST