1 Mar
2003
1 Mar
'03
2:29 p.m.
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.
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.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
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.