22 Jan
2003
22 Jan
'03
5:56 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 11:02:08 -0800, robbins jacob wrote:
However, it seems that plugin writers are more
comfortable interpreting
port type=audio to mean that the rate of the port is audio rate. Steve
suggests that it is splitting hairs to try to absolutely determine whether
an audio-rate port is for audio or control content. If this is the case
then we should just leave 2 port types and add a hint for audio-rate ports
that they should be used for control data.
I feel I must warn that this will make the ladspa_port_types audio vs
control a little misleading to people when they first read the header. If
the port type is chosen to be audio and not data then the port should be
for audio and not data, right? In short I think adding a third port type
would keep the header self-consistent, whereas adding a hint that overrides
and reverses the port type is twisting the standard to match current useage.
Not at all, the /type/ indicates what data you should expect (a vector of
LADSPA_Data or a single value), whereas the hint indicates likely usage.
Continuous control is a common term than implies a stream of data.
In any case this will not be directly visible to users.
- Steve