>> http://www.emagic.de/english/news/2002/osx3.html >> http://www.emagic.de/german/news/2002/osx3.html > >OK, so the inevitable question. do we know how 'free' the spec is giong to >be? Is it a good candidate for LADPA? > >I get the impression that the graphics API is tied to the DSP API, which >could make it hard for us X11 people.
my impression from reading the AudioUnits docs of late last year was that there was no mention of graphics at all in the API. thats why it seemed hard to figure out if they are in-process or o-o-p. otoh, i think that apple fully intends the specification itself to be "free". its not like VST, where you have to go and *get* VST from steinberg; CoreAudio comes *with* OS X, and so they have no distribution issues to worry about - its part of the same overall license as the OS. i presume that means that implementing a version of the API for a different OS is completely legal. header files? not sure. i don't consider AudioUnits a good candidate for LADPA, but that doesn't mean i don't like the AudioUnits API. instead, it was a prime motivator behind JACK. i think that VST is actually much better overall, but it has some rough edges that might, or might not, be fixed in 3.0. VST is a lot, lot, lot more tested in the real world. the AudioUnit API still shows way too many signs of "Apple-speak" for me. i can't really pin down what i mean by this, but whenever i browse the API specs, i just have this pascal-y, motorola-ish feeling in my gut :) plus there's that little problem with AudioUnits not being capable of capture as of a few months back. somebody on the VST plugins list claimed it was something to do with a kernel thread design issue - quite deep, if true. --p
