On 12/8/2009, "David Robillard" <dave@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 23:39 +0100, james morris wrote:
>> On 12/8/2009, "Steve Harris" <steve@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>>
>> >On 12 Aug 2009, at 23:20, David Robillard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Allow one group of ports to have either no replication, or the same
>> >> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being,
>> >> controls tend to stick to 1, audio tends to get replicated, but we may
>> >> want to replicate the controls to match audio. So, a single plugin
>> >> could do all of the above cases in a single instance, if the author
>> >> wants to do it that way.
>> >
>> >That makes sense to me.
>> >
>>
>> that's what i thought what i said implied [scratches head].
>
>.... I don't think "or ganging the control ports" really quite conveys
>the idea entirely ;)
Don't be daft! I'll admit my LP filter example was less than concise.
>> >> Allow one group of ports to have either no replication, or the same
>> >> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being,
Which group of ports? The output group from the previous plugin in the
chain? Why not just the number of channels? That's all that's needed
for the simple case I'm talking about.
Would it be worth having two extensions? One for complex examples useful
for (modular) synthesis and voice polyphony, and another for the simple
cases such as the lp filter example?
james.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Aug 13 04:15:05 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 13 2009 - 04:15:05 EEST