Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Mustajuuri -> LADSPA plugins.
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_op.net)
Date: Wed Mar 28 2001 - 16:43:14 EEST
>> Besides, the user interfaces can be really different. We would need new
>> XML-spec for any new GUI element (right ?). Example: A modeling reverb
>> plugin might want to show an interactive 3D-model of the room to
>> the user. So, if you wanted a GUI like that, then we'd need a XML spec for
>> 3D rendering and interaction and everybody needs to implement the XML spec
>> (or lose the plugin). There are many GUI strategies people have come up
>> with (and will come up with). If we want to support all of them then the
>> XML-spec will become huge.
>
>I agree, but no-one could suggest a good way of providing a GUI to a
>LADSPA plugin. I would suggest that anything that complicated probably
>shouldn't be implemented in LADSPA, athough there is not much choice if
>you want your plugins to be usable by more than one host.
Right, and just as a reminder for anyone who's forgotten the problem:
If the plugin uses a toolkit to creates its GUI, then the host has
to be using the same toolkit for there to be any hope of it
working.
Since LADSPA has nothing to say about the qualities of the many varied
toolkits available for the X Window System, its inappropriate to
connect LADSPA to a particular toolkit. Ergo, its not possible for a
plugin to use a particular toolkit and expect it to work.
We did discuss the idea of providing alternate GUI's. Then, if the
host was running, say, GTK+, it could check to see if the plugin had a
GTK+ GUI and use it. Or it could use the XML spec, or it could refuse
to implement a GUI for the plugin at all. I quite like this idea,
myself.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 15:39:00 EEST