22 Apr
2006
22 Apr
'06
2:44 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 11:41 -0400, Phil Frost wrote:
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 10:53:58AM +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
It would definitely be a really, really cool thing if we could do this.
LADSPA plugins would be useful in so many more domains if "hosts" could
get at the code...
The downside is that we would have to mandate a standard build system
and FS layout of some variety. I'm generally not for such dictatorial
things, but in this case I think it's justified. Having some sort of
standard build system/directory layout/etc (ie a completely standardized
plugin package inc. source code) would allow a good LADSPA repository
site to be easily built as well - something else I think is sorely
needed. The current "system" of LADSPA distribution definitely sucks.
-DR-
Almost two years ago at the LA conference a bunch
of us agreed that
something need to be done to improve LADSPA, and on the approximate
direction it should take.
[...]
In my experience developing modular synths, it would be a huge benefit
to performance if modules had the option of including source code in the
bundle. This is especially useful if the module can provide a function
that calculates the outputs one sample at a time. I reckon most modules
which do not do any frequency domain calculations can do this.