Subject: Re: my take on the "virtual studio" (monolith vs plugins) ... was Re: [linux-audio-dev] ardour, LADSPA, a marriage
From: Stefan Westerfeld (stefan_AT_space.twc.de)
Date: Sun Nov 19 2000 - 16:12:40 EET
Hi!
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 12:17:28PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > Without these characteristics, my "virtual studio" idea cannot be implemented.
> >
> > (You know: all "applications" runs as "plugins" of a main host, which
> > never never never blocks (*) (mark the last 4 words .... ) )
>
> The MAIA model assumes that it's ok to send events from plugins as
> well as from applications outside the engine, or from plugins in
> other engines on other machines, so no problem there.
>
> I don't know about MCOP or libsigc++ in that respect though; is it
> possible to do "decoupled" (non-blocking) operations, even if the
> target happens to be in the other end of countless meters or cable?
Basically yes, it's the difference between
interface Foo {
void barBlocking(string s);
oneway void barNonBlocking(string s);
};
whereas asynchronous streams (which could for instance be used to transfer
a stream of midi data) and signals & slots stuff will always use the
non-blocking variant.
Exceptions to the rule are currently always
- the first call of a non-blocking function
- the "make-a-connection" operation
where some negotiation take place - as mentioned in my previous mail, doing
a state-machine-like solution, or putting requests like that in a seperate
thread would solve these issues.
Cu... Stefan
--
-* Stefan Westerfeld, stefan_AT_space.twc.de (PGP!), Hamburg/Germany
KDE Developer, project infos at http://space.twc.de/~stefan/kde *-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 19 2000 - 16:48:21 EET