Re: [LAD] Let's kill EPAMP???

On 3 Jun 2008, at 18:54, Paul Davis wrote:

>
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:34 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 3 Jun 2008, at 12:53, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone is going to write that helper library (or adjust SLV2
>>>>> or
>>>>> whatever), I guess we should find some reasonable conventions to
>>>>> organize and use plugins in a chain-like thing. This is damn hard,
>>>>> as
>>>>> Paul Davis outlined already on this mailing list, and I actually
>>>>> don't
>>>>> know to which degree it should be done.
>>>>
>>>> It's not necessary, just intervene after each run() call, it's not
>>>> hard and on a modern machine the cost is negligible.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm not understanding here. How would you do exactly?
>>
>> You don't have to make plugin A directly feed plugin B, you can have
>> the host do some buffer twiddling inbetween.
>
> this is still pretty hard steve.

Well, yes, and no. Actually doing something is easy, doing the Right
Thing™ is basically impossible. With LV2-style annotations, it might
be possible to tie up L to L and R to R and so on, but beyond that
it's essentially guesswork.

However, for a media player the host could just ignore all plugins
that have anything other than a LR pair of ins and a LR pair of outs,
or a 5.1 set or whatever.

You don't have to solve all the hard problem to make use a plugin
format.

- Steve
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jun 4 16:15:02 2008