1 Mar
2003
1 Mar
'03
3:48 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 07:20:49PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
On Saturday 01 March 2003 17.12, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[...]
If we do this on the right level, we can have both. We definitely
should have a standard graph description (and preset) file format
anyway, and all we need is a way for plugin authors to provide useful
subgraphs with their plugins.
did you specify a serialization method on the plugins ?
how will this be handled ?
then these
components must be built of other components...
i dont see a reason why one wants a big complex component
if it could be built from smaller components...
(other than performace)
Absolutely they must be built out of other components. The question
is: who does the building? I'm saying that the plugin designer
should be able to present a complex "plugin" which is actually a
ready-connected graph of simpler components. The alternative is for
the plugin designer to present a "bag of bits" for the user to
connect together.
As to user interfaces, this is where many->one and one->many
(DSP->GUI) gets in. You might want to have a single "panel" for a
mixer, even if it's constructed from multiple DSP plugins.
This is already implemented in galan and i find it very
nice...
I have been talking with a friend about the gui issue...
and he said that an interface which lets the plugin return
a bitmap would do the trick to make it toolkit independent...
we could add some sort of slider interface also but
this was not the issue...
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language