On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@email-addr-hiddenwrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 02:18:58AM -0400, Tim E. Real wrote:
> > Anyway, question:
> > How hard would it be to make Aeolus available as a plugin like DSSI,
> > LV2 or LinuxVST, or... WinVST?
>
> That is not going to happen. There is no reason why Aeolus should be
> a plugin, functionally it is perfectly usable on its own and it doesn't
> need anything hosting it. You could as well ask for Ardour3 as a plugin.
>
I have sketched out a rough plan for Ardour3-as-LV2 plugin, actually. I can
see a few cases where it could be useful.
>
> If you want to use Aeolus to render your scores, all you need to do
> is send the midi data. I assume that musescore can send midi to
> external (hardware) synths ? Then it can do the same with Aeolus.
>
Fons, with all due respect, I think you're playing analogy card a bit too
strongly here. I have physical synths here and software synths. The latter
are not like the former, and they don't need to be. One way in which they
are different is there is no inherent reason why they have to be run in a
separate process from the thing that is sending them control data.
There are reasons why a developer or a user might PREFER to have their
synthesis taking place in its own process, and there are reasons why they
might prefer it to be in a different process. Insisting that there is no
reason for doing the single-process case is a bit stubborn - I mean, look I
know that there is no way to do this with a hardware synth, but one of the
reasons we write software is precisely because it isn't hardware.
I think you should stick with "I have absolutely no intention of ever
releasing Aeolus as a plugin", and not try to provide a reason for it.
--p
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Sep 24 12:15:02 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 24 2013 - 12:15:02 EEST