Re: [LAD] LADSPA dilemma

On Fri, 2007-15-06 at 13:08 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2007, at 11:59, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > (*) [OT] After the latest LV2 thread in which I participated,
> > I've stopped suggesting such simple things, becaues the reaction
> > is always the same - it's too complicated for the plugin developer,
> > it's inefficient, etc. while this is in general not true - e.g.
> > the call suggested above can just be ignored if you don't
> > interpolate control values. Anyway I won't even try again,
> > and I'm currently developing my own plugin API.
>
> I'm not interested in starting that discussion again, but it's a
> tradeoff between making life significantly harder for plugins that
> want to do more sophisticated things, and making it slightly harder
> for all.
>
> I don't think it's at all obvious which is the better option on the
> whole, but I know what I prefer.
>
> Control value ramps seems to be the solution of choice, but
> historically LADSPA didn't have those.

I would like to see polymorphic control ports that can be single values
like current LADSPA controls, or ramps, or CV (audio rate control),
depending on which it's connected to.

Hopefully an LV2 port like this will take shape. Having separate
plugins for each kind of port (ala LADSPAs with a control version and
audio version) really sucks, especially when the plugin you want doesn't
have the port type you need.

-DR-

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sat Jun 16 00:15:02 2007