Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: proposed initial DTD for LADSPA-gui-xml .. licensing issues ...
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Mon Nov 27 2000 - 04:33:22 EET
>BTW, I like the sound of the Paul's LADSPA XML GUI spec (although I'm no
>XML expert). I have a suspicion that it will not suffice as a long-term
>general-purpose do-everything GUI for LADSPA, but I don't think it has to
>be seen in this way.
And indeed, it wasn't meant to be. I re-read the discussions earlier
this year, and the "consensus" that I detected was that an XML
abstract GUI spec would suffice as the simpler half of a two-pronged
attach on the problem. the second prong was that *some* hosts *might*
run threads that allowed the plugin GUI to be supplied as a compiled
toolkit-specific native object.
I think that in fact the XML approach will take us about 75% as far as
libvstgui, with much less code to write to get there. I'd still like
to finish my aborted port of libvstgui to Gtk--.
It certainly does much good and no harm, as long as we
>can find a safe way to glue it on to the existing LADSPA standard (if this
>is necessary at all). I need to put some thought into this before
>commenting further...
the proposal, back in march or whenever, was to add:
const char *(*xml_gui_description)();
to the plugin API, and allow that it could be NULL if the plugin
author chose not to supply a spec for the GUI in this way.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 05:22:47 EET