10 Jun
2004
10 Jun
'04
2:36 p.m.
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 07:28, Paul Davis wrote:
for DSSI, this seems great. but for LADSPA it seems like a major
change in philosophy, one that would turn LADSPA into DSSI. i am not
opposed to that, in fact i think its a fairly good idea, but i think
we need to be clear about that if that is in fact the general idea.
That reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask (after actually
reading the DSSI RFC)
Is there anything really soft synth specific about DSSI? Should it be
DAPI (disposable audio plugin interface).
I was thinking about implementing a complicated delay (kinda like
tapiir) in DSSI and realised it's a bit of a contradiction.
Steve?
-DR-
There is chasm both broad and deep between
"plugin, show your GUI now"
and an actual implementation of such functionality.
Yeah osc.udp://localhost:2134/ui/show ;) I'm very much in favour of
simple, UNDERcomplicated solutions. If you make its easy to do almost
everything and possible to do hard things I think you get the best
protocol / API / design. Its out of process. Sounds like torben wants to
swallow the plugin UI,
thats kinda neat, didn't think anyone would bother, but we should take
that into account.
yeah, returning an XID sounds like a nice touch there.
btw, i guess we should get busy with LADSPA v2 soon, eh?
--p