Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ladspa GUI round 2
From: Stefan Kersten (steve_AT_k-hornz.de)
Date: Sat Mar 31 2001 - 13:12:14 EEST
"STEFFL, ERIK *Internet* (SBCSI)" wrote:
> > My understanding is that the XML explains how to set-up the GUI and
> > its up the app designer thats calling the plugins to implement the
> > interface. On one hand I see that allowing multiple GUI Toolkits
> > makes a wider array of possibilities and allows programmers to use
> > their skills where they know them best, but on the other hand, I feel
> > that one of the problems with Linux is a general lack of standards.
>
> there is no problem allowing all of these - you can have completely host
> generated gui, or host generated gui based on xml. or you can let plugins to
> have their own gui. as long as plugins are independent of guis there's no
> problem. basically each plugin has to be able to operate without gui (even
> though for some plugins it does not make sense, e.g. visualization plugins)
>
> > There are a TON of toolkits, and every author likes to use different
>
> there are tons of toolkit on windows and nobody seems to complain. even MS
> itself uses different widgets in different applications...
>
> however, if you don't like inconsistent look of plugins, generate xml gui.
> user should be able to specify which particular gui the plugin uses (even
> though plugin can hint).
>
> > ones. I would not want to install an entire toolkit just to use one
> > plugin! By limiting to a single toolkit in the overall tool, we at
> > least standardize the interface across as much of it as possible.
>
> just make sure that interface between plugins and their guis is well
> defined, then you can specify any gui you like for any plugin. so if the
> plugin has ugly gui using the widget set you can't stand just tell your host
> to generate gui or use xml (if xml is provided, or if you care enough to
> create one). the key here is to have the interface between plugins and guis
> well defined.
>
> IMO it's easiest to define gui using xml, so that should be pushed as
> standard, after all LADSPA is primarily for audio processing, I guess most
> of the plugin creators will like the idea of easy gui definition. For the
> ones that want to do some more advanced graphic work - they can write their
> own quake engine for their plugin:-)
I think the problem is that when you want a GUI comparable to
plugin GUIs on Windows (read: VST plugins) you will have to do a
good amount of work anyway; sliders is one example: they look ugly
in just about _any_ toolkit (MacOS sliders are cool though :), and
when looking for custom controls like knobs, waveform editors or
envelope displays your favorite toolkit will leave you pretty much
alone.
My vote would be for a library on top of say SDL (which is cross
platform) with basic drawing/bitmap routines and a standard
collection of control widgets tailored to music applications. But
then again my vote doesn't count, for I do not have the skills nor
the time to contribute to such a project :)
<sk>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 15:57:40 EEST