Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA proposal ...
From: Fons Adriaensen (fons.adriaensen_AT_skynet.be)
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 21:17:23 EEST
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:19:11PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> >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.
>
> I think this is a mistake. Although I know that X does have a protocol
> at its core, I am convinced that the reason it has been so successful
> (in addition to its feature set) is that it has had a single, standard
> stable library interface. I don't know anyone now who *ever* writes X
> protocol code, and I've never met anyone (except a few people I once
> knew who worked on a commercial X server, and even that was more than
> 15 years ago).
This is irrelevant. Xrm has nothing to do with the X protocal, and you can
use it without having an X server. It's just a database manager that was
originally designed to hold X resources, but it's general enough to use
it for whatever you want.
> Wrapping file formats in libraries allows the formats to change
> without us forcing recompilation on anyone. Defining a file format and
> believing we got it right is tantamount to a religious act
> IMHO. Nobody ever gets it right first time. Even if you use a
> framework like XML or xrm, you still have to define the contents.
>
> Its also been a *very* useful approach as JACK has evolved. We have
> modified the protocol several times without requiring client
> recompilation.
This is an API, not a file format.
> >The plugins I made for AMS have modulation inputs, and I don't see what's
>
> Take a side-chain compressor: how can a host know that one input is
> for the "main signal" and the other is the side-chain? If you leave
> all connections to the user (as in AMS, i think), this is discernible
> by a human intelligence, but in something like ardour where the user
> expects basic connectivity to be done for them, its a problem.
>
> >special about them. An we still have 20 + something hint bits...
>
> But that's the whole issue. Adding hint after hint after hint
> ... every one requires a new header file.
>
One header file, yes, and then only if you want to support the new
bits.
-- FA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 14 2004 - 21:05:57 EEST