18 Nov
2003
18 Nov
'03
10:23 a.m.
I'd like to say: woohoo!
i suppose that if i knew this was possible 2 years ago, i would never
have written JACK. that's the upside, perhaps. should JACK exist? is
the address space isolation worth it? big questions.
What are the arguments against stuffing the UI code in
the same .so file?
what happens if you wanted a different GUI for the same plugin? well,
personally i think this is too much of an edge case - people who want
to do this can learn to recompile/relink. so i'd be fine with putting
it in the same .so file.
2) the GUI
would have to declare which toolkit it was using so that
the host could ensure support for it (i.e. fire up a thread that
will run the equivalent of gtk_main or QApplication::exec()) and
ask the relevant toolkit thread to call the primary entry point to
the GUI. how does it declare this? a well known symbol? is it a
char* or a function call? is it in the LRDF entry, or the filename,
or what?
This can be wrapped in a non toolkit specific library, right? Cant most of
this be handled by the plugin UI? 6) [ only if
we really wanted hosts to have a "real" handle on the
plugin GUI window ] the library would need to contain a way to
pass in an X "Window", and wrap it up as a native drawing area
for each toolkit. i would prefer not to do this for now, if ever.
I'm not clear on the specifics of how this all works, but the host may
well want to swallow the plugin window(s) and max/minimise it and so on.