Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] extending LADSPA, it's not that easy ......
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 17:26:21 EET
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 08:55:31AM -0500, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
> >Well, I have "simple" answers for all of those questions, and it's no
> >big deal to implement it. However, if it's a part of the API all
> >hosts and/or plugins *have* to deal with it one way or another, or
> >we'll soon end up with lots of "classes" of LADSPA plugins, which
> >won't run on host of all other classes, and/or won't work together
> >with plugins of certain classes. Not very nice, especially not for
> >the end-user.
>
> we already have this. LADSPA allows a plugin to not implement
> run_adding(). some hosts may have good reasons to not run such
> plugins. as far as i could tell, most plugins in the CMT set (thanks,
> richard!) don't implement run_adding(). not nice.
Why is this bad? My understanding of the LADSPA callbacks was that you
were only intented to implement run_adding if you could do so with some
performance gain over the host doing it. Is there a good reason to
implement it anyway?
- Steve (who's just written 8 or 9 plugins sans run_adding, d'oh)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 06 2000 - 18:22:21 EET