hi Thorsten
looks nice.
i think its quite conventional though, albeit with the
addition of per-container tempo/timesig.
while i wouldnt use the tempo/timesig much myself, i can
see its a useful addition.
you dont say much about global horizontal or vertical
settings. By 'global vertical', i mean Tracks. Its
important, i think, to be able to set properties on a
collective or default basis, as well as overriding or
modifying them individually.
Similarly, i see the need for 'global horizontal' settings,
for example allowing tempo changes across all child
containers. Its not clear whether your model would allow
that.
- Making it easy to switch instruments, effects,
routing, etc. without the need to add several
tracks (therby wasting vertical space and making
it harder to get the 'big picture'
I dont think tracks neccesarily add space. Especially if you
optionally allow, for example, a per-container output
channel, as has been in Cubase since v1.0 (well actually
thats per-note, but the concept is similar).
The (headless) core should concentrate on allowing
to record, arrange, edit and output data.
Multiple Clients could communicate with one server,
allowing collaborative sequencing (some additional
mechanism would be required, of course).
This is more or less what i am working on. Still nothing
usable unfortunately. If i cant get it together soon,
i'll probably just make the code public as is anyway,
so that people can see it...
I agree with you that a general purpose library or deamon is
sorely needed to encourage a rich interface ecosystem.
Theres no good reason why a user shouldnt be able to use a
Radium style interface while simultaneously using a
conventional graphical window displaying the same data.
regards
--
Tim Orford