2 Jun
2012
2 Jun
'12
11:32 a.m.
[David Robillard]
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 20:22 -0400, David Robillard
wrote:
[...]
If you will allow me to go back and question the rationale for a bit:
Consider a simplistic convolution plugin designed around a fixed
FFT-dictated block size. Obviously somebody has to decouple this
fixed size from whatever is factually mandated by the audio hardware
or used by a freewheeling host's main audio loop. As long as the host
isn't *required* to implement this decoupling, our plugin *must* do it
itself and work with whatever the host asks it to process, be it 1,
23, or 16384 frames at a time.
As a plugin author, I consider all assumptions or guarantees about
the block size useless unless the plugin can tell the host exactly
what it wants, and get it everytime (and I'm not even sure it would be
worth it).
Cheers, Tim
I am attempting to farm
precisely one piece of information: whether or not the above callback
can adequately express any reasonable block length situation; i.e.
whether or not any plugin could know "yes, I can run" or "no, my
requirements to run are not met".
Also, I suppose, if restrictions need to be dynamic, or if static will
suffice.
Specifying exact minimums and/or multiples seems pretty esoteric and of
dubious benefit to me. Doing so dynamically even more so...