Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA extension proposal (quick action wanted)
From: Richard Guenther (rguenth_AT_tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de)
Date: Sun Dec 09 2001 - 16:45:37 EET
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
> >using tcpip will simplify implementation. Also we could make use
> >of existing technology and simply present a http server to the GUI
> >(which in turn can be any browser) either from the LADSPA host
> >or directly from each plugin.
>
> the point of LCP is to hide the nature of the communication between
> the GUI and the host. that way, the implementation can be changed
> without changing either the hosts' or the GUIs' code. if we tried to
> use HTTP directly like that, we'd have to use a complete HTTP library,
>
> as soon as we have GUIs that do:
>
> http_put ("/some/url/ladspa?plugin/port/value");
>
> we're locked into http for good. otoh, just typing that line had a
> nice feeling to it. was it as nice as
>
> lcp_write (client, plugin, port, value);
>
> ? i know which one looks more portable and easy to use ...
>
> the thing about the http case is that it has nice echoes of OSC
> without the OSC codebase being involved.
>
> the other problem is that unless http was wrapped, GUIs would still
> have to deal with conversion from the char * return type of an
> http_get operation back to the actual port value (when reading a port
> value).
Yep, but I think the advantages outweight the problems.
Richard.
-- Richard Guenther <richard.guenther_AT_uni-tuebingen.de> WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/ The GLAME Project: http://www.glame.de/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Dec 09 2001 - 16:40:05 EET