Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA extension proposal (quick action wanted)
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 07 2001 - 12:47:59 EET
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:00:02 -0000, Richard W.E. Furse wrote:
> GUIS AS PART OF THE PLUGIN
As Paul pointed out it isn't actually neccesary to change LADSPA to
implement this. Earlier we we thinking of letting hte plugin specify a UI,
but that isn't really neccesary (or desirable).
> CATEGORIES
>
> Again, this is ancilliary to the plugin itself although it did nearly end up
> in the original spec. Perhaps we should agree on a set of calls that the
> library might support, possibly in a number of different flavours depending
> on application requirements. I also like Steve's ontology idea.
Well, again this doesn't require any extensions to LADSPA, it could just
be a little RDF fragment that can be found from the plugins ID
(/usr/share/ladspa/ontology/1220.rdf or whatever).
http://www.w3c.org/RDF/ I can see it might seem a bit overkill, but
it really is very powerful, and we don't have to use RDF, we could use a
simpler representation.
> XML FOR PLUGIN PARAMETER SETS
>
> This is slightly OT but relevant - I think this is a good idea. To do it
> "right" it needs to be compatible at least with any spec for networks as any
> network standard will have to deal with plugin parameters sets. This will
> probably happen anyway - is anyone looking at this? I have a fairly trivial
Kai has a ASCII based format for expressing networks, and it is very good,
but a bit ecasound specific.
> PER-PLUGIN VERSIONING
>
> Hmmm, not sure about this. PluginID+Version is just a bigger int, so we can
> get away with just PluginIDs in principle. I'm not sure versioning helps
Yup, I agree. I will try to bump id numbers in plugins that have new
interfaces form now on.
> CHANGING CONTROL PARAMETERS DURING PROCESSING
This has never bitten me because my plugins (nearly) always do:
LADSPA_Data gain = *(plugin_data->gain);
But this is an important issue and needs to be sorted out.
> GOING BEYOND LADSPA
>
> To quote part of the original posting (see
> http://www.ladspa.org/original_api.txt), "I believe this plugin API should
> be a subset rather than a superset of the logical functionality of systems
> in use at the moment". I still think this is true. The idea was that almost
Yep, I agree with this. I was forgetting the S! However I would like to
see the defaults (they should be back compatible) and the propsed GUI
doesn't add to the complexity of LADSPA.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 12:44:04 EET