18 Oct
2016
18 Oct
'16
11:58 p.m.
Paul, a bit of optimism can go a long way. We could make stuff like this,
and the ones who don't want to agree on the standard can be left behind.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:50 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:28:37 -0400
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
I'm not saying nothing. I'm trying to tell you that if you want a set of
plugins that behave as an integrated whole, sharing data about the tracks
they are processing and potentially using data from other tracks to adjust
their own behaviour, then you need them to share *memory*, not exchange
messages.
There's effectively no chance that different plugin manufacturers will
ever agree to a single standard for such a thing, so there's unlikely to be
any "protocol" or "specification" for this. It is something that a
single
plugin company could do on their own, to notable effect.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
let me offer you a hint.
Good !
what the plugins need to share are not messages
but computer
(analysis) data.
So much for the hint.
normally (though not universally), when entities
run inside a single
process and need to share information, they do so by sharing access to
memory.
This is writing to say nothing.