Re: [LAD] LADSPA dilemma

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:08:17PM +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:

> I agree that the API should support parameter smoothing, but again, I
> postulate that a generic solution is simpler than you suggest. (And
> it doesn't require hosts to "keep internal processing state of a
> plugin".)

The API involvement should be minimal. In many cases the
interpolation is done not on the control values themselves
but on internal parameters derived from them. Exposing this
via the API seems like a bad idea. So it's an internal problem
for the plugin.

But if parameter smoothing is accepted as something that is
desirable or even essential for some plugins, then some way to
bypass it will be required as well, e.g. when processing a loop
with params from automation data, when starting a new voice in
a poly synth, etc. This needs API support. Every functionality
has its price, even if this is trivial in this case.

> No, I'm not, and I do not understand why you think I am.

If you have to write all code to support the interpolation,
then adding that flag and an if() testing it will not add
any significant complexity, not does it require any special
skills. After the first time it becomes a design pattern,
you just cut and paste the framework or get it from a base
class.

-- 
FA
Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev