Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA extension proposal (quick action wanted)
From: Richard Guenther (rguenth_AT_tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de)
Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 10:58:35 EET
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
> >If I remember correctly http goes both ways. Also its not really a lot
> >of baggage - you can f.i. structure your plugin stuff in the filesystem
> >tree, so a GET parameters/factor[.html] would just get you a "1.233"
> >f.i., and PUT (or was it PUSH?) of the same sort sets the value.
> >Note again, using an existing protocol helps development and debugging
> >and probably interoperability.
>
> actually, i can tell you from experience that it doesn't. there are 2
> reasons:
>
> 1) HTTP is stateless
> this has been widely criticized, and widely praised.
> its already apparent that the LCP protocol cannot
> be stateless
I dont see this is a problem.
> 2) the hard part of handling protocols is not implementing
> formatting, delivery + parsing of messages. its
> integrating the handling of i/o into the structure
> of the client+server. no HTTP library that i've seen
> will help with that. in fact, no protocol library
> of any kind that i've seen helps with that.
>
> >Anyone knows another simple standard protocol that can be used?
>
> i don't understand. why do you want to use a generic, essentially
> complex protocol to replace a specific, extremely simple one?
I dont want to use a complex protocol (http isnt complex) - and using
an existing protocol allows you to use existing clients/servers that
are known to work to debug your implementation (and in case of http
you even get some GUI stuff for free). But well - I dont have time
to implement it, so you're again more fast at coding than we in
discussing.
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 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 10:52:40 EET