Esben Stien wrote:
> We have to be able to export the model data so that we
> can have a daemon running and have clients connect to it and work on
> the same session.
Yes, that's the way I've been thinking of it too.
> > I also imagine writing things like search-and-replace functionality,
> > and algorithmic composition tools, as separate editors in their own
> > right.
>
> Elaborate.
Um, was that an adjective or an imperative?!
You can read some of my thoughts on this at
http://www.skynet.ie/~jmmcd/zz.html. Ignore the parts about plugins,
though, because they're redundant. The original plan was for a plugin
host/sequencer, with separate ui/editor modules, communicating via
OSC. But my programming skills and free time are limited, so
a) it makes sense to hand the plugin host job off to a separate
program, eg to Om (http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/om-synth),
which can be driven by OSC, and
b) maybe it makes sense to simply alter an existing sequencer to run
as daemon + editor modules (which communicate via OSC). Did I read
somewhere that Rosegarden is already like this? If so, how easy would
it be to write (eg) a stripped-down, hotkey-driven tracker editor
which communicated with the Rosegarden core?
While we're on the subject, what are the prospects for turning an
existing MIDI sequencer into an OSC sequencer (which could then take
full advantage of a plugin host like Om)?
Received on Wed May 11 16:15:15 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 11 2005 - 16:15:15 EEST