[linux-audio-dev] Project: modular synth editor

[Steve Harris]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:40:53AM +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> Well, they *can* be. There's nothing that prevents a LADSPA plugin from
> creating a new thread for things that can't be done in the process call.
> So a LADSPA plugin that e.g. plays back samples is certainly possible.
> But then either the host isn't aware of what this plugin is doing, or you 
> have to abuse ports to pass things such as alsa sequencer handles, port
> numbers or file names. 

Or use non-LADSPA i/o - there are few situations where thats sensible, but
if the non LADSPA i/o is suitable general (eg. OSC) and the plugin bevaves
itsself without the non-LADSPA stuff then that may be a good idea.
 
> Now if you say module == LADSPA plugin, that would mean that
> - either you abandon that architecture, put the sound processing part
> into the LADSPA part and let the host add the base_class functionality
> for each module that is loaded,
> - or you abuse the LADSPA ports to implement interfaces they were never
> meant for, with the result that you have a 'compliant' plugin that will
> be useless outside the host it was designed for.

Again you can just use non-LADSPA i/o, especially if the plugins are
really internal to the host and not exported, sounds like an odd thing to
do, but if it makes your code cleaner or simpler then its a good idea,
right?

- Steve