[linux-audio-dev] exploring LADSPA

[Tim Hockin]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:24:50AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> 
> >and other controllers using (yuck) MIDI for now. LADSPA is interesting but
> >I do not see where it handles some of the issues of polyphonic voicing
> >and assignment control.
> 
> it doesn't. it was never meant to. attempts to create an API that did
> do this led to discussions here (on LAD) about "XAP", but this has
> just about all moved to the GMPI mailing list, where us LAD'ers get to
> hang out and talk shop with the guys at Cakewalk, Adobe, FXpansion,
> and several other companies who work on plugins and DAWs. devising
> your own new API at this time is a bit like, err, err, i don't know
> what its like but its like something.

It's like designing a new windowing system.  You MIGHT do better, but lots
of really smart people have done worse.  I'd actively beg that anyone who
has a lot of thoughts on this PLEASE catch up on GMPI and join in the fray.
The XAP ideas have actually been pretty well received so far, and the LAD
community is doing a lot to stop the Mac and Windows people from screwing
this up yet again (Paul, Steve - my thanks!).

> not missing the point. i welcome any and all developers to LAD and to
> LADSPA. but those who don't know and understand history are condemned
> to repeat it, and the linux world is full of repeated false starts
> while all the time promising projects cry out for more assistance to
> flesh them out.

I too started my own plugin API to replace LADSPA for multichannel IO and
instruments etc.  It's a BIG problem to do really right.  I think XAp had
some REALLY clever ideas come out of it.  GMPI is sanctioned by the MMA - if
ANYTHING has a chance at succeeding cross-platform, that is it.  Yes, it is
a SLOW process.  Yes, you'll have to make concessions to Windows developers.
But in the end, you might just have a real winner of an API.

Tim