Re: [LAD] LADSPA dilemma

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:34:19PM +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:

> [Fons Adriaensen]
>
> >It would also be possible to define that calling run() with nframes
> >equal to zero means 'update your internal state to the current
> >control values', but this not specified in the LADSPA specs.
>
> I really like this idea. True, it might break some plugins, namely of
> course those that divide by the number of frames without looking at
> its value -- but these are likely to be the ones that do parameter
> smoothing already, and would be updated first.

That would include almost all of mine :-(
It's not really backward compatible w.r.t. hosts - no host should
ever do this until _all_ plugins are updated...
 
> A simple redefinition of what is already in place that gains us quite
> a lot of control over parameter smoothing. Very elegant, I think.

Note that this is not really simpler than the flag I proposed earlier.
It requires exactly the same code to update the internals, and instead
of testing the flag you have to test nframes.

-- 
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