Re: LADPA (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] emagic (logic) drops VST support under OS X)

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: LADPA (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] emagic (logic) drops VST support under OS X)
From: Richard Bown (bownie_AT_bownie.com)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 14:20:24 EEST


On Wednesday 04 September 2002 11:33, Tim Goetze wrote:

> what i am trying to steer towards is an approximation of 'plugins'
> and 'applications'.

approximation == abstraction?

> if both interface with the same system-wide
> graph in the same way we get possibilities for free that must be
> coded over and over again with the 'monolithic' application
> designs we currently have. (by which i also mean .so-based designs
> that force you to do source/header reading and coding before
> connecting.)

Isn't this where the audio servers such as aRts have hoped to do
business too?

I'm currently trying to code plugin abstractions as part of a LADSPA
host for Rosegarden and sure enough when I compare what I've come up
with against the code for ardour or MuSE I can see that I am just
basically rehashing old ground.

I would like to make a point further to this but I think I'm getting the
out-of-process argument mixed up with the where-should-the-gui-go
argument. I can see that these two _can_ be related but they don't
have to be. Also I'm getting more confused by the RDF stuff. I was
under the impression that it was going to be a grammar for describing
plugins and therefore I hoped something to extend LADSPA hints somewhat
perhaps/help with gui building.. it seems I was a bit out there.

Any simple explanations for a simple person?

B

(hopefully this will make it to the list this time - anyone else having
 posts just disappear or should I feel paranoid?)


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Sep 04 2002 - 14:30:33 EEST