Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA and run_adding()
From: David Olofson (david_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Sun Nov 19 2000 - 20:27:29 EET
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, David Olofson wrote:
>
> > * all plugins provide only run_adding()?
> > * all plugins provide only run()?
> > (Did anyone notice that run_adding() is not far from being
> > inherently inplace broken...? That's what Kai's examples show.)
>
> Hmm, yup, basicly that's the real problem. If only run_adding()
> is provided, LADSPA_PROPERTY_INPLACE_BROKEN must be defined.
It's implicit, so it's not called for using that flag for that.
Besides, that flag is meant for run() - that's the only version that
can be anything but INPLACE_BROKEN by design.
> And for serially connected plugins, inplace processing is the only
> reasonable (=efficient) solution.
Yes... So the question still remains; which run*() do we require;
run(), run_adding() or BOTH? Is there any strong argument for either
of the methods being the required default, or is the only solution to
require both versions from all plugins?
*heh* We have three camps; authors of applications that do mainly
chains, dito for mainly mixers style arrangement, and finally the
plugin authors. At least one group will complain no matter what...
//David
.- M u C o S -------------------------. .- David Olofson --------.
| A Free/Open Source | | Audio Hacker |
| Plugin and Integration Standard | | Linux Advocate |
| for | | Open Source Advocate |
| Professional and Consumer | | Singer |
| Multimedia | | Songwriter |
`-----> http://www.linuxdj.com/mucos -' `---> david_AT_linuxdj.com -'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 24 2000 - 22:21:24 EET