28 Jan
2006
28 Jan
'06
6:03 a.m.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:45:35 -0800, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
That is certainly true.
...
I did consider that quite hard, but its really hard to come up with a 90%
solution that is even vaguely practical, and doesn't limit implementation
choices too much.
The DSSI solution is quite neat because using only glade (or the Qt
equivalent), an OSC library and a tiny bit of glue code you can build a
GUI. For the kind of simple UIs youre talking about the glue code could be
autogenerated. Also, the impact on the host is minimal.
- Steve
Reuben Martin:
>>(Why hasn't anyone made a ladspa plugin with a GUI by the way? Its
>>really simple just spawning of a gui process program.)
They have, it can be done via the DSSI API.
Because you
have no way of knowing if the platform you are running it
No no, you misunderstand. I said "spawning of a gui process" (I should
rather have said "spawning off a gui process", but I didn't. :-) ).
Well, I guess the question was more retorical. I personally think reason
is that linux programmers aren't that much into bells and whistles as
windows programmers. on will have
support for the toolkit needed by the GUI. It would be
nice to append the LADSPA spec to allow for a simple markup language
to describe the GUI, and then depend on the host to render that markup
language into a GUI. It would make it toolkit independent.
No, that would not be nice at all. Far too complicated for the hosts, and
guis would be different from host to host, and limited by the markup
language
What would be nice was if we used a common gui-designer like qdesigner
or glade, so that someone could make an automatic gui-spawner library
that used the xml-files from qdesigner or glade to make guis. That way,