Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA 2

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:06:26PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 17:30 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 02:26:57PM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> > > Referencing:
> > > There needs to be a safe way to reference plugins and their ports.
> > > Portnames make for human readable patch files, but this doesn't
> > > work with i18n, when Attack becomes Einschwingzeit ;)
> >
> > Plugins have URIs! And ports have uniqe identifying numbers within the
> > plugin. We could assign URIs to ports too, but I think thats going too
> > far.
>
> I'm not going to suggest ID numbers go away, but I do think ports should
> have a uniquely identifying string label. Primary reason being OSC
> control, and using plugins in language bindings (ie python) - both
> things that are getting much more prevalent now than when LADSPA first
> arrived.

OK, that's an argument I could buy. i'm still not completly convinced, but
it does make some sense.
 
> Noone wants to set the frequency of an oscillator with the OSC message
> "/set oscillator/4 440" when they could "/set oscillator/freq 440". Or
> plugin.port(4).set_value(440) when it could be
> plugin.port("frequency").set_value(440). Code (or OSC messages) using
> plugin indexes as IDs is completely unreadable.
>
> This is actually very important to me, I would very much like unique
> port string ID's for the above reasons unless there's a good reason
> there can't be.

I guess you mean unique in plugin scope? It would also have to have some
restriction on what values it could take, eg. [a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_]+ some
kind of lowest common denominator between symbols for various languages
would make sense.

- Steve
Received on Sun Apr 23 00:15:11 2006