Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA v1.1 Alternative Proposal
From: Richard Guenther (rguenth_AT_tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 23:54:48 EEST
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 01:52:40PM +0100, Richard W.E. Furse wrote:
> After some more worry about the least untidy way to do defaults, I've come
> up with the following, based on Paul's/Steve's scheme. I'm edging towards
> this as preferable to my previous posting for LADSPA v1.1.
>
> Please let me know how you think this compares with the previous
> incarnation.
>
> Some comments:
> * I'll include a standard getDefault() function implementation in
> the SDK so host programmers don't have to work through the cases.
> * The *_HIGH and *_LOW options are a bit complicated. We could ditch
> them.
> * This approach does NOT allow explicit defaults (e.g. 0.707). However
> the
> previous approach only managed this by partly mucking up the structure
> that makes LADSPA simple. However, this default set does cover all the
> defaults I came up with for the CMT library when I went through it
> before, so I'm confident it's a good start point. I've left some slack
> too - there is room for another 6 default rules or values in the
> future.
Whats wrong with just extending the _LADSPA_PortRangeHint struct and
adding LADSPA_HINT_DEFAULT? Also I'd vote against adding a getDefault()
function implementation. Do such things in a separate support library
(if at all).
Richard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue May 28 2002 - 00:43:45 EEST