Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] RFC: Disposable Soft Synth Interface
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 20:09:43 EEST
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:32:14 +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
> [Chris Cannam]
> >The assumption is that the host just passes on whatever the GUI
> >selects, and it's up to the GUI (which of course is provided by the
> >plugin author, or at least built to match the plugin) to understand
> >the key value pairs. Of course that means if you have no GUI you
> >can't use configure(), but the alternatives do seem potentially
> >rather complicated.
>
> hmm. agreed of course about the complicated alternatives. i wasn't
> aware that a separate plugin GUI becomes nigh mandatory, which i must
> admit i find not to my greatest liking.
>
> however, the entire configure() liturgy makes sense once the GUI
> implication is accepted.
I share your unease, but really it shouldn;t be a problem - a host built
LADSPA-style gui has no way of generating such configuration commands, and
if you desire to trigger them form some other means you can just send
/configure OSC messages to the host and it will accept them as if a UI
had sent them.
One of the resons for using OSC as the transport is that it allows things
like Pd to do the control stuff, if you dont want to code a custom UI (or
not in a conventional toolkit manner), while still not limiting you to
host-built GUIs.
> i'm not too intimate with liblo/OSC, so sorry for asking an RTFM
> question: does OSC provide some sort of alternative, textual
> representation of configuration options?
I dont think I understand the question, but you can do something like:
# lo_send /DSSI/id/configure ss "load" "myfile.dat"
for example, or the equvalent in SC, Pd, python etc.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 20:17:13 EEST