Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA proposal ...
From: Mike Rawes (mike_rawes_AT_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 19:08:53 EEST
--- Paul Davis <paul_AT_linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
> 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.
I'm OK with the proposal. The complexity can be hidden in the library - at the
moment hosts effectively have their own built in library for LADSPA 1.x anyway
(I wrote one for Spiral Synth Modular).
Minor nitpick regarding what is carried over as metadata from 1.x: Can we get
rid of the label? - I never did see the use for it. The ID is sufficient for
identifying plugins, and the name (as metadata) for presenting in a UI.
-
Myk
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 14 2004 - 19:08:13 EEST