Subject: RE: Re[2]: [linux-audio-dev] ladspa GUI round 2
From: STEFFL, ERIK *Internet* (SBCSI) ("STEFFL,)
Date: Fri Mar 30 2001 - 18:19:56 EEST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Burnett [mailto:destinytech_AT_spacey.net]
>
> FWIW I thought that I would bring up one of my ideas again. I like
> the idea of having 'multiple' GUI configurations, say for example
> 'General' or 'Advanced'. This gives the user the ability to use a
it looks like all of the ideas point to the separation of plugin (the dsp
part) and gui it should be simple to have as many GUIs as you like. The
plugin can run without gui, with host generated gui (based on which ports
plugin has), xml based gui, it's own gui (separate process) etc...
...
> Now, as far as multiple GUI Toolkits for plug-ins, this really is a
> question of how much you want a plug-in to define its own interface.
having the actual GUI program (separate process) is one of the options (or
should be, IMO)
> 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:-)
erik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 15:57:45 EEST