Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] and just to finalize ...
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 15:50:25 EET
I'd like to say: woohoo!
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:23:05 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> what would all this mean for LADSPA?
>
> 1) there would need to be a way to associate plugins+GUIs since we
> probably don't want them in the same object.
>
> - could be done using LRDF or a dir search path combined with the
> plugin ID.
I vote for the latter, otherwise the fully qualified GUI path would have
to be in the metadata, which seems a bit odd.
What are the arguments against stuffing the UI code in the same .so file?
> 2) the GUI would have to declare which toolkit it was using so that
> the host could ensure support for it (i.e. fire up a thread that
> will run the equivalent of gtk_main or QApplication::exec()) and
> ask the relevant toolkit thread to call the primary entry point to
> the GUI. how does it declare this? a well known symbol? is it a
> char* or a function call? is it in the LRDF entry, or the filename,
> or what?
This can be wrapped in a non toolkit specific library, right? Cant most of
this be handled by the plugin UI?
> 6) [ only if we really wanted hosts to have a "real" handle on the
> plugin GUI window ] the library would need to contain a way to
> pass in an X "Window", and wrap it up as a native drawing area
> for each toolkit. i would prefer not to do this for now, if ever.
I'm not clear on the specifics of how this all works, but the host may
well want to swallow the plugin window(s) and max/minimise it and so on.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 15:50:32 EET