[gmpi] Re: a little order?

  • From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:40:17 +0000

On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:33:17 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> can i suggest that we perhaps follow a slightly more orderly approach,
> at least to start? folks familiar with LAD will know how conversations
> like this can rapidly swing into a multiplicity of different
> orthogonal orbits.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "herding cats" ;)
 
>                       i'd humbly suggest that we start by listing
> things that we specifically do or do not like about existing plugin
> APIs.

OK, what I like about LADSPA:

1) all i/o is 32bit float
2) the hints (log, toggle, integer etc.)
3) arbitrary, "soft" ranges
4) complete seperation of UI and DSP

Things I dont like about LADSPA:

5) no timestamped events
6) can't send/receive tagged, binary data blocks [yes, I know this
   contradicts pt 1 ;) ]
7) no units or named values
8) can't save internal state
9) bad metadata (also relates to 7)

- 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: