Subject: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA proposal ...
From: Paul Davis (paul_AT_linuxaudiosystems.com)
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 15:36:24 EEST
well, it appears that there is little to no response to the proposal
from the LADSPA meeting at ZKM. just to be sure that the silence is an
accurate reflection of what people think, i want to take a harsh
stance on the proposal and see if it generates any response...
if we follow through with the proposal, LADSPA will no longer be a
header file. it will require the use of a library. the actual struct
in the header file will contain the absolute bare minimum information
required to actually run a plugin, nothing more. No port names, no
hints, no default values. we will try to make the library
self-contained, dependency-free, but it will still be more complex
than the current model.
moreover, there will be 2 versions of LADSPA floating around, thus
leading to problems with host/plugin compatibility issues.
personally, i think its worth going through this pain. we will end up
with a system in which new LADSPA extensions do not require changes to
the API, which is a great thing. but it will be painful to get there,
and i want to check that people don't mind doing it.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 14 2004 - 16:07:04 EEST