10 Jun
2004
10 Jun
'04
8:09 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:28:17 -0400, 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.
To be clear, it make no changes to LADSPA - its a completely external
spec, and doesnt include any of the plugin stuff from DSSI.
Yup, I dont really understand the X realted issues, but I'm happy to let
it be someone elses problem.
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?
Yup, but I dont think we got consensus on the metadata format, which is
kinda fundamnetal. For the record, I (still) think we should use a
restricted subset of RDF/N3.
- Steve