Re: [LAD] [RFC] LADSPA 1.2

2009/6/18 Stefano D'Angelo <zanga.mail@email-addr-hidden>:
> 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

Oops, I was meaning struct ladspa_port_value_enum **
ladspa_get_port_value_enums(unsigned long descriptor_index, unsigned
long port_index);

Returned value is a NULL-terminated array of pointers... well, whatever.

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