Re: [LAD] "enhanced event port" LV2 extension proposal

From: Dave Robillard <drobilla@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Thu Nov 29 2007 - 02:07:44 EET

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 23:39 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Dave Robillard wrote:
> [...]
> > The only problem that needs to be handled is how to get the type in
> > there. I would like to find a good solution to this problem that's
> > as extensible as URIs but doesn't actually stick a URI in the event
> > struct (there are a few other future extensions that have the same
> > problem. strcmp of URIs in the audio thread is, as you say,
> > completely out of the question, but so is handing out a flat numeric
> > space. This is /the/ problem that needs solving here, and I'm
> > desperately trying to guide the conversation in a direction that
> > will get it solved nicely ;)
>
> I don't know if this is applicable here, but for Audiality 2 I'm
> dealing with this on the connection level. Each control is a port
> like any other, meaning it has a name, a protocol URI and a few other
> parameters that the host needs to know what can and cannot be
> connected. If two ports have the same URI, they can be connected, and
> that's it, basically. Event semantics ("structured
> stream", "commands" etc) and data fields are left to the plugins that
> implement the ports, so the host doesn't even need to know what the
> plugins are talking about. (This is a "direct connection" model; data
> is not normally piped through the host.)

Same with LV2 ports; works perfectly for port types. Problem is,
sticking a URI in each /event/ is far too bloated/slow.

-DR-

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Nov 29 04:15:03 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 04:15:03 EET