21 Mar
2003
21 Mar
'03
7:29 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:49:53PM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
i know that. In galan it is the same.
But why should this difference be so clearly stated in the API ?
If there was only one list of pads which would either be events or
audiorate push, or pull or whatever type it would be cleaner.
If in the face of gmpi it still makes sense to specify XAP we should
make it supersede gmpi. But as acceptance is the biggest API feature i
doubt this makes sense.
no... galan is almost an XAP implementation. read the XAP early
scribbles thread i respawned.
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
why support
the difference between ports and controls ?
This is done in the C galan and tony somehow managed to remove this
difference in the C++ galan.
Because throughout all the XAP discussions we have made it clear that
controls are event-driven and ports are audio-rate data (specifically audio
data). Controls are more flexible in their data typing.
We have argued many hours about th ebenefits/drawbacks of using normalized
float data for everything and the decision we came to was that it just isn't
the best model. I point you at th earchives for the discussions :) I have not read much of this code but tony said
he managed to remove
this.
LADSPA is much the same way - connect anything to anything. But several
people in the XAP discussion feel that normalized data (0 to 1.0 or
whatever) is bad. I am still of the position that I could be convinced to
support two basic control types: numerical (normalized) and other (strings,
data block, etc). This, however, is still not the same as audio-rate
controls, which is what you get when you plug an oscillator into a knob.
The simplest concept is that they are different things. Audio and Control
data. Reconsidering this notion would takes us WAY back to early XAP
discussions. Maybe that is OK - anyone want to make a case for a new
fundamental model?