Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Mustajuuri -> LADSPA plugins.
From: Stefan Kersten (steve_AT_k-hornz.de)
Date: Thu Mar 29 2001 - 16:22:26 EEST
Paul Davis wrote:
> but sure, there's nothing in principle from preventing this from being
> done. and the way that you've phrased it this time makes it seem more
> appealing than it ever did before. instead of LADSPA GUI XML, we could
> just standardize on a way for the other-process GUI to communicate
> with the plugin-instance in the host and/or the host. then people
> could build totally arbitrary GUI's using whatever toolkit they want.
>
> >> Plugin and (Plugin-) gui should be handled completly separate. It should
> >> be possible for the plugin gui to exist without any plugin instance.
> >> Parameter changes are send as messages to the plugin host. The plugin
> >> hosts routes this parameter changes to the gui.
> >
> >In LADSPA the host controls th plugin's parameters.
>
> But only as the last step. Something presumably tells the host to
> modify the control port. It could be an in-process GUI, part of the
> host GUI, an out-of-process GUI using some kind of IPC to its
> plugin-instance counterpart, or it could be the phase of the moon.
Hey, OpenSoundControl may just be the right candidate for the
communication part; no messing around with shared memory, but
instead using Unix/UDP[/TCP] sockets. The plugin GUI could even
run on a different machine or you could (given the host's OSC
address space is standardized somehow) control a plugin's
parameters algorithmically or whatever outside your favorite
sequencing/programming environment. Just an idea ...
<sk>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 15:56:48 EEST