Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA proposal ...
From: Fons Adriaensen (fons.adriaensen_AT_skynet.be)
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 20:07:59 EEST
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:01:01PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> >I don't mind *IFF* the metadata file has a simple, human readable
> >syntax (no XML please) that can be parsed line by line.
>
> no XML, and yes, parsable line by line, and yes, human readable. *but*
> the plan should be to use the supplied library to get and set
> values. nobody should be doing it themselves otherwise we end up with
> an almighty mess.
??? Not if the data format is specified. I will fiercely resist any
standard that is defined as a library interface.
> >Another solution is to use the xrm format, and then you get the library
> >for free - it's part of X11 client library but independent of the graphical
> >part of X.
>
> yes, its a nice model for sure, but LADSPA needs to work without
> linkage to X. there are people who use LADSPA plugins on systems where
> X is not installed.
>
> >Another point. I've defended the adoption of simple integer enumerations
> >(corresponding to a C switch) using the argument that it is the single
> >missing essential feature in the port information.
>
> I just found another: side-chain and/or modulation inputs. Its not
> possible to distinguish the current purpose of audio input ports, and
> this is important for several interesting classes of plugins (anything
> that modulates operations on one signal with another signal). This
> would require Yet Another Hint.
The plugins I made for AMS have modulation inputs, and I don't see what's
special about them. An we still have 20 + something hint bits...
-- FA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 14 2004 - 19:56:15 EEST