4 Mar
2011
4 Mar
'11
4 p.m.
On 03/04/2011 03:40 PM, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
Thanks for clarifying that..
But does this mean that LV2 already support what I explain /with/ existing
extensions?
I'm sure he wouldn't. Otherwise, my patch to remove this glib dependency may
never be submitted ;)
--
Olivier
2011/3/4 Olivier Guilyardi <list(a)samalyse.com>om>:
But LV2 is
extensible. So what I think is that in addition to the extensions
which imply UI/engine separation (and I understand that it's important in many
cases), there should be a DoWhatTheFuckYouWantInYourPlugin extension ;)
With such plugins, restoring/saving state would rely on passing a blob in
addition to restoring/saving the control ports values. There would be no such
thing as UI/engine separation. The plugin would be self contained. And hopefully
it would integrate nicely with other extensions such as midi.
Actually control ports do not define the state alone, the state also
includes plugin-specific data (the stuff the LV2_Handle thing should
point to) - and that is generally a binary blob anyway (unless you do
some other kind of storing/restoring, like with key/value pairs,
etc.). I think that
this extension, since it would only imply simple but powerful
primitives, would give a lot of freedom to developers who want that, and at the
same time be rather easy to maintain.
Why do you hate yourself so much?
/me buys popcorn and waits for Dave to bash you hard. :-)