29 Apr
2004
29 Apr
'04
3:16 p.m.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:32:14 +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
[Chris Cannam]
I share your unease, but really it shouldn;t be a problem - a host built
LADSPA-style gui has no way of generating such configuration commands, and
if you desire to trigger them form some other means you can just send
/configure OSC messages to the host and it will accept them as if a UI
had sent them.
One of the resons for using OSC as the transport is that it allows things
like Pd to do the control stuff, if you dont want to code a custom UI (or
not in a conventional toolkit manner), while still not limiting you to
host-built GUIs.
The assumption is that the host just passes on
whatever the GUI
selects, and it's up to the GUI (which of course is provided by the
plugin author, or at least built to match the plugin) to understand
the key value pairs. Of course that means if you have no GUI you
can't use configure(), but the alternatives do seem potentially
rather complicated.
hmm. agreed of course about the complicated alternatives. i wasn't
aware that a separate plugin GUI becomes nigh mandatory, which i must
admit i find not to my greatest liking.
however, the entire configure() liturgy makes sense once the GUI
implication is accepted. i'm not too intimate with liblo/OSC, so sorry for
asking an RTFM
question: does OSC provide some sort of alternative, textual
representation of configuration options?
I dont think I understand the question, but you can do something like:
# lo_send /DSSI/id/configure ss "load" "myfile.dat"
for example, or the equvalent in SC, Pd, python etc.
- Steve