12 Aug
2009
12 Aug
'09
9:48 p.m.
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 00:05 +0100, james morris wrote:
On 12/8/2009, "David Robillard"
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
So the guy claiming he described the solution already is still working
on grasping the problem? :P </daft>
Other plugins are /way/ outside of scope. What is "the number of
channels"? Just some abstract parameter, we're designing a plugin API
here, not a modular synth's internals. As described in the above quoted
email, the problem is sometimes you want the audio ports on plugin P
replicated and the control ports on plugin P singular, but other times
you want the control ports on plugin P replicated to match the audio
ports. Anything to do with other plugins is well within "host's
problem" territory.
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 23:39 +0100, james morris
wrote:
Don't be daft! I'll admit my LP filter example was less than concise.
On 12/8/2009, "Steve Harris"
<steve(a)plugin.org.uk> wrote:
.... I don't think "or ganging the control ports" really quite conveys
the idea entirely ;) On 12 Aug 2009, at 23:20, David Robillard wrote:
>
> Allow one group of ports to have either no replication, or the same
> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being,
> controls tend to stick to 1, audio tends to get replicated, but we may
> want to replicate the controls to match audio. So, a single plugin
> could do all of the above cases in a single instance, if the author
> wants to do it that way.
That makes sense to me.
that's what i thought what i said implied [scratches head]. > >> Allow one group of ports to have
either no replication, or the same
> >> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being,
Which group of ports? The output group from the previous plugin in the
chain? Why not just the number of channels? That's all that's needed
for the simple case I'm talking about. Would it be worth having two extensions? One for
complex examples useful
for (modular) synthesis and voice polyphony, and another for the simple
cases such as the lp filter example?
In a word, no. Same problem, and it seems a very simple solution can
handle the complex cases anyway.
Cheers,
-dr