4 Mar
2011
4 Mar
'11
4:50 a.m.
On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:15 PM, David Robillard wrote:
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 08:56 +1300, Jeff McClintock
wrote:
I would just like to point out that many/most of the movers and
shakers
in this community have been advocating (often with much opposition) a
full plugin/UI split for years. I guess now that the commercial guys
have finally gotten around to it the stupid arguments (e.g. that it's
not needed because VST or whatever doesn't have it) go away. Hooray.
For the record: It's now official that the old VST way was garbage,
and
a complete plugin <=> UI split is an obvious requirement, not
unrealistic idealism or a topic at all up for debate.
Hmm, if you want a "complete plugin <=> UI split", doesn't that mean
something like the lv2_external_ui extension, which puts the UI in
a separate process (perhaps even on a different computer), rather
than the libsuil approach that could easily lump the host, numerous
plugins, Qt, GTK+, and who knows what else (GL? SDL? segfaults?)
all into one process? Or am I not understanding what you mean by
"complete split"?
-Sean
From:
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
Subject: Re: [LAD] Portable user interfaces for LV2 plugins.
VST3 allows the GUI to run in a different
process?
" The design of VST 3 suggests a complete separation of processor
and edit
controller by implementing two components. Splitting up an effect
into these
two parts requires some extra efforts for an implementation of
course.
But this separation enables the host to run each component in a
different
context. It can even run them on different computers. Another
benefit is
that parameter changes can be separated when it comes to
automation. While
for processing these changes need to be transmitted in a sample
accurate
way, the GUI part can be updated with a much lower frequency and
it can be
shifted by the amount that results from any delay compensation or
other
processing offset."