linuxaudio.org

On 03/04/2011 01:53 PM, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:

quoted text
> Hence, in this case, I think we should exploit the

> extensibility/decentralization of LV2: those who, like me, care about

> "control rate" visualization hints may want to help on web UIs, for

> example, the others might do the same with native GL.

>

> The only thing that we all need to ensure is that things work well

> together, whatever the host/plugin author choice is, also trying to

> make the whole thing as painless as it can be for everybody.

>

> Side note: this is yet another case where we could proceed to some

> structured effort coordination at this point, but my feeling is that

> this won't happen and the discussion will lead nowhere in the end.

There is one thing which stays on my mind.
I am familiar with developing JACK clients, not plugins. However, there has been

quite a few discussions in the past where JACK was advocated as a way to create

modules, DSP units dedicated to a specific task. In other terms: some kind of

plugins.
And what is absolutely nice about this is how it is non-intrusive. When working

on a JACK client, there are only audio input and output ports, a thin transport

layer, done. From these primitives, upon this bare but solid ground, a developer

creativity enjoys a lot of freedom.
However, there's been this critical and long-lasting session handling problem.

Fortunately, this problem doesn't occur for LADSPA and LV2 plugins, since saving

and restoring state is performed by the host.
But, with this UI/engine separation, whenever a developer comes out with an

innovative idea that he really likes, he's very likely to hit a wall because of

a specific LV2 technical constraint. And at the same time it takes an incredible

(if only possible) coordination effort to maintain LV2 to fulfill and

*anticipate* all needs.
But LV2 is extensible. So what I think is that in addition to the extensions

which imply UI/engine separation (and I understand that it's important in many

cases), there should be a DoWhatTheFuckYouWantInYourPlugin extension ;)
With such plugins, restoring/saving state would rely on passing a blob in

addition to restoring/saving the control ports values. There would be no such

thing as UI/engine separation. The plugin would be self contained. And hopefully

it would integrate nicely with other extensions such as midi.
I think that this extension, since it would only imply simple but powerful

primitives, would give a lot of freedom to developers who want that, and at the

same time be rather easy to maintain.
--

  Olivier
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev