19 Feb
2007
19 Feb
'07
1:29 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 18:10 +0100, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
you don't merge or gain anything with a parallel graph. only serial
ordering is amenable to "optimization", and such arrangements are very
rare.
find me a host author who would want to use such a thing... managing
plugins is a central task of a host, and handing that over to some
"wrapper" that hides information from the host doesn't make the host's
life easier, it makes it more complex.
--p
nope. thats
not a linear arrangement of the two mono plugins, but a
parallel arrangement. the signal going to each instance of the mono
plugin is different.
I'm obscure even in Italian, I can just imagine how it can sound like
in English :-)
I was not talking about that specific thing, I was talking about a
case which could take benefit of some kind of parallel processing
merging. you can think
all you want. unless there a plugin->host callback that
allows the plugin to determine its operating environment in huge detail,
this kind of idea is pretty impossible to make use of.
What?
Once again: misunderstood! These optimizations involve that the
"wrapper" (I should stop calling it this way) knows about the network
of processing objects (read: plugins) and that these last ones contain
"generic" information on their functionality (ex. STFT for LTI proc.
objects).
Then the wrapper takes care of optimizing the net.