14 May
2004
14 May
'04
3:27 p.m.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:01:01PM -0400, Paul Davis
wrote:
??? Not if the data format is specified. I will fiercely resist any
standard that is defined as a library interface.
I think this is a mistake. Although I know that X does have a protocol
at its core, I am convinced that the reason it has been so successful
(in addition to its feature set) is that it has had a single, standard
stable library interface. I don't know anyone now who *ever* writes X
protocol code, and I've never met anyone (except a few people I once
knew who worked on a commercial X server, and even that was more than
15 years ago).
Wrapping file formats in libraries allows the formats to change
without us forcing recompilation on anyone. Defining a file format and
believing we got it right is tantamount to a religious act
IMHO. Nobody ever gets it right first time. Even if you use a
framework like XML or xrm, you still have to define the contents.
Its also been a *very* useful approach as JACK has evolved. We have
modified the protocol several times without requiring client
recompilation.
I
don't mind *IFF* the metadata file has a simple, human readable
syntax (no XML please) that can be parsed line by line.
no XML, and yes, parsable line by line, and yes, human readable. *but*
the plan should be to use the supplied library to get and set
values. nobody should be doing it themselves otherwise we end up with
an almighty mess. The plugins I made for AMS have modulation inputs, and
I don't see what's
Take a side-chain compressor: how can a host know that one input is
for the "main signal" and the other is the side-chain? If you leave
all connections to the user (as in AMS, i think), this is discernible
by a human intelligence, but in something like ardour where the user
expects basic connectivity to be done for them, its a problem.
special about them. An we still have 20 + something
hint bits...
But that's the whole issue. Adding hint after hint after hint
... every one requires a new header file.
--p