On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 00:06 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 05:17:50PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
>
> > arguing for unnecessary inclusions is a waste of time.
>
> Indeed it is. I'll argue for removals then. Neither run()
> nor init() need the current parameters as they can be
> provided by extensions.
>
> (it's out of context, but my .sig fits nicely here)
init does not ever need to be replaced by any extension, since, again,
it already has a mechanism for providing whatever parameters you please,
and init in it's current form is required to allow these extensions to
work at all. Your init() "proposal" is nonsense, frankly.
run is obviously needed to.... duh, run the plugin. It's in LADSPA,
QED. Despite your childish attitude on the issue, a more fully featured
run method which supports fixed block sizes etc. is a fine idea, and is
possible with the current spec, so there is no problem here either.
Again, if you are interested in this problem see the existing solution.
Regarding the one sensible thing you /have/ said: is sample rate as a
double sufficient, or is there a good reason for numerator/denominator
(that outweighs the PITA for the plugin author)?
-DR-
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu May 10 04:15:06 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 10 2007 - 04:15:06 EEST