3 Feb
2003
3 Feb
'03
1:10 p.m.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Steve Harris wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 03:26:26 +0000, ian wrote:
Mine will use it.
It's such a small amount of effort to write the mix function once you have
done the replace function and it can be so useful in certain situations
that it seems stupid not to include it in a plugin API. And after all, if
a plugin developer doesnt want to write the mix function, the plugin API
doesn't have to force them to write it, as is the case with LADSPA.
Ian
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Steve Harris wrote:
Mix is very useful for hosts that are running a lot of plugins. Take for
example a modular soft synth. You can save a lot of memory by having
plugins mix into buffers rather than allocating an output buffer for each
plugin. It's not really that much effort to write a mix function as well
as a replace function when you compare it to the actual plugin development
time. I would be very sorry to see it go, as it would mean people would be
able to get less out of their hardware.
Thay can, but do they. Host authors aren't keen on having multiple code
paths either.
- Steve
* No mix output mode; only replace. More
overhead...
But how many hosts use mix? As a plugin author, having to implement both
is a pain. I use code generation to make both functions.