[linux-audio-dev] Plugin APIs (again)

[Steve Harris]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:16:57 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> Well, all I have to say on that is that I think it's a bad idea to 
> draw a strict line between the two kinds of systems. I think one API 
> that handles both would be a lot more like real analog stuff, where 
> you don't really have to worry about protocols and APIs - it's all 
> just analog signals. I'd like to be able to use virtual studio style 
> plugins inside my modular synth networks, and vice versa, as far as 
> practically possible.

Well LADSPA can handle modular synth style modules perfectly well, modulo
the lack of GUIs nad conneciton detection (c.f.  AMS), so theres no need
to support thier features elsewhere.

> > If you can give me an example of an instrument that benefits from
> > variable numbers of i/o and doesn't deserve to be a standalone jack
> > client then I'l agree with you.
> 
> Good point - if we were talking about a plugin API strictly designed 
> for synths. From what I've seen on the VST list, assuming that an 
> instrument is one thing and an effect is another is just plain wrong 
> - and that's still within a single API.

Well there is a lot of overlap, I'm see this as a kind of
LADSPA+instrument features, so you could still define effects in it if you
wanted to, and it would be ideal for synth+effects, like simple vocoders.
 
> Anyway, a stand-alone JACK synth would still need a way to get 
> control events from a sequencer - just like synth plugins, or effect 
> plugins. Should we use ten different ways of controlling synths, or 
> does it perhaps make some sense to have a common protocol for that?

Maybe, at the moment jack is standardising more-or-less on
alsa-sequencer. I thinks theres a good argument for a jack native event
type, but thats a bit ooff topic for this discussion.
 
> Another good point. Maybe not even file names are a sensible 
> candidated for a standard control type. But I still think it may make 
> some sense if the host knows what to do with the *files*, even if it 
> doesn't understand anything about their formats or naming conventions.

Yes, I agree, for the reasons you gave eriear, encapsulation basicly. I'm
not sure it makes sense fora host to try to do anything with the files,
but its useful if it knows they exist.

- Steve