23 Apr
2006
23 Apr
'06
4:46 p.m.
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 05:04:18PM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:39:52 +0100
Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
Generally, I'd agree, but in this case I think it's a bad time. We need to
make sure we dont introduce anything that wierds the spec.
It changes both plugin and host code, so it will be easier to add things
once both have settled down, and the rought edges have been knocked off.
- Steve
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 01:10:55 +0200, Florian
Schmidt wrote:
I tend to disagree as it is kinda orthogonal to the other proposed
changes. What time other than a major version change is better to add
such a feature? thanks for taking the initiative on this! I would
like to see a way for
the host to pass its native buffer size to the plugin though. I know,
this is really kind of contrary to how LADSPA is supposed to work (i.e.
the run () function should be able to handle an arbitrary number of
frames), but it has some serious advantages for fft-based algorithms.
And i think it should be possible to merge the two approaches somewhat.
Thats a new feature. It'll have to wait til after 2.0 as far as I'm
concerned.