8 Mar
2004
8 Mar
'04
1:33 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:41:19 +0100, Dr. Matthias Nagorni wrote:
Yes, I am supprised ;) Though, clearly the grouping of a port is metadata,
it is intrinsicly tied to the naming: for clarity you have to remove the
group from the label before displaying (if you choose to group), so I
think you would just end up duplicating the port name exactly, so theres
no point representing it externally.
Yes, thats a good point.
In any case it was just an RFC. I'm not sure I'm in favour of this mysefl
yet :)
- Steve
Something that
was suggested for GMPI, and might be applicable for LADSPA
is a convetion where port names can be written as paths, eg for a delay
line you might have
"delay/base delay (ms)"
"delay/feedback (%)"
"lfo 1/ammount (%)"
"lfo 1/wave"
"lfo 1/frequency"
"lfo 2/ammount (%)"
"lfo 2/wave"
"lfo 2/frequency"
this would allow the host to group the controls logically when building
the UI, eg. tabbing them, and friendlier OSC reflections of plugins.
Steve, you will be surprised, but the grouping information looks like meta
data to me. I would have no objection to place this in the RDF extension.
Recently I got a feature request for ams regarding tabbing of LADSPA
parameters and this would indeed be a useful feature. It would
require that lexical /'s be escaped, but other than that it
should be transparent. Its only worth adding if hosts would implement
something using it though, as it would cause a bit of disruption, there
are about 30 exisiting ports with /'s in them.
Hosts could check the LADSPA version number.