Re: [LAD] [RFC] LADSPA 1.2

2009/6/18 Luis Garrido <luisgarrido@email-addr-hidden>

> This has been debated already. Several times. For instance, please
> follow this (long) thread:
>
>
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2004-March/006948.html
>
> While I think that each side of the argument has its merits, in the
> end to me it all boils down to: "is lrdf simple and lightweight enough
> so it is acceptable to consider it from a practical point of view a
> de-facto mandatory extension of ladspa.h for all but the simplest of
> hosts and plugins?"
>
> My personal answer is "mmm... okay, I guess" but I don't think we will
> ever reach a global consensus on this.

We have basically five alternatives, I guess:

1. Forget about this;
2. Implement this breaking the ABI (API too?);
3. Do as Fons suggested (which to me sounds like make that tiny part of the
API a bit counter-intuitive);
4. Use LRDF;
5. Add something like this to the API:

struct {
  float value;
  const char *name;
} ladspa_port_value_enum;

struct ladspa_port_value_enum * ladspa_get_port_value_enums(unsigned long
descriptor_index, unsigned long port_index);

I'd choose 4 or 5, but in the end I don't really care, whatever is fine with
me.

Stefano

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Jun 19 00:15:03 2009