[gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:17:57 +0100
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:15:15 -0400, RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Steve Harris wrote on Wednesday, May 28, 2003
> >>>
> NB LADSPA, and I assume some of VST, DirectX, MAS etc. has a simple
> "inplace safe" hint, it works fine.
> <<<
>
> DirectShow uses a variation on buffer passing. DMO (DirectX media objects)
> do too, I think.
>
> FWIW in our internal code we use a kind of buffer passing scheme as well.
> We have an abstraction for audio data buffers, for purposes of discussion
> call it AudioBuffer. Then our audio processing elements have 2 methods:
> ProcessInput( unsigned nInput, AudioBuffer* pInBuffer );
> ProcessOutput( unsigned nOutput, AudioBuffer** ppOutBuffer );
Uh-huh. This raises my complexity hackles, but I've never coded with this
style of API, so I dont know what it would be like.
There must be plenty of people here who've written DirectX and VST style
plugins, I'd like to hear thier experiences.
As a plugin author I'd really like to trade plugin complexity for host
complexity ;)
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place