On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@linuxaudio.org> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 02:18:58AM -0400, Tim E. Real wrote:
> Anyway, question:
> How hard would it be to make Aeolus available as a plugin like DSSI,
> LV2 or LinuxVST, or... WinVST?

That is not going to happen. There is no reason why Aeolus should be
a plugin, functionally it is perfectly usable on its own and it doesn't
need anything hosting it. You could as well ask for Ardour3 as a plugin.

I have sketched out a rough plan for Ardour3-as-LV2 plugin, actually. I can see a few cases where it could be useful.

If you want to use Aeolus to render your scores, all you need to do
is send the midi data. I assume that musescore can send midi to
external (hardware) synths ? Then it can do the same with Aeolus.

Fons, with all due respect, I think you're playing analogy card a bit too strongly here. I have physical synths here and software synths. The latter are not like the former, and they don't need to be. One way in which they are different is there is no inherent reason why they have to be run in a separate process from the thing that is sending them control data.

There are reasons why a developer or a user might PREFER to have their synthesis taking place in its own process, and there are reasons why they might prefer it to be in a different process. Insisting that there is no reason for doing the single-process case is a bit stubborn - I mean, look I know that there is no way to do this with a hardware synth, but one of the reasons we write software is precisely because it isn't hardware.

I think you should stick with "I have absolutely no intention of ever releasing Aeolus as a plugin", and not try to provide a reason for it.

--p