Subject: LADPA (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] emagic (logic) drops VST support under OS X)
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 03 2002 - 18:21:12 EEST
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:58:05 +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
[toolkit problem]
> that's where out-of-process is our only hope of unification i think.
> this or that some sunny day all of the toolkits agree on a common
> divisor.
Well, it is possible to write a plugin-specific common denominator. I have
no idea how much work it would be and it would have to be written for
every toolkit that people wanted to write hosts against.
> if the Jack server turned into a library, it would be easy to write a
> jackd, jackd-tk, a jackd-fltk, a jackd-qt, jackd-gtk, and load clients
> into the 'jackd-x' server process if they agree on toolkit 'x' and are
> .so themselves.
I think this would be a real headache to code, I'm still thinking along
the lines of self contaitned .so-s that are dlloaded into a particular host
and the graph is controlled by that host.
> what i liked about the CA approach, and like about Jack, is the graph
> idea. i think all the Jack graph lacks conceptually is the ability
> to also transport timestamped, structured information among client
I agree. I think building graph a API into CA was a good idea, it could
allow a much greater level of interoperability between hosts.
> if all clients initially support a small tree of common named object
> types, we might be able to create a simple ever-emerging API which
> can express solutions in many problem spaces, leaves all authors
> reasonably free and which will converge by evolution:
Interesting idea. I'm not sure how it would pan out in reality. It might
be a good match to the heavily distributed Free s/w development model, but
it might also degenerate into chaos ;)
MIDI seems the be one thing there is a lot of requests for, and it would
also be one of the hardest to agree on.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Sep 03 2002 - 18:33:53 EEST