22 Apr
2006
22 Apr
'06
2:48 p.m.
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 11:41:16AM -0400, Phil Frost wrote:
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 10:53:58AM +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
That's too big a departure from LADSPA 1.x for me to consider right now.
Almost two years ago at the LA conference a bunch
of us agreed that
something need to be done to improve LADSPA, and on the approximate
direction it should take.
[...]
In my experience developing modular synths, it would be a huge benefit
to performance if modules had the option of including source code in the
bundle. This is especially useful if the module can provide a function
that calculates the outputs one sample at a time. I reckon most modules
which do not do any frequency domain calculations can do this. Lastly, I'm not saying bundles-as-directories is a
bad idea, but an
alternative to an openstep bundle is an ar archive. It works like tar,
only it is designed for nonsequential access of members. ".a" static
libraries and ".deb" debian packages are really just ar archives.
Yes, also jar/xpi zip files are possible. I've nothing against them, but
they mean more work for plugin and host authors, and its slightly more
work for curious users to find out what's in a plugin. The advantage being
that its a single file to pass around.
I did give it some thought, and came to the comclusion that directories
were /slightly/ better overall. My mind is not set in concrete though.
- Steve