On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 07:20:49PM +0100, David Olofson wrote: > On Saturday 01 March 2003 17.12, Simon Jenkins wrote: > [...] > > >then these components must be built of other components... > > >i dont see a reason why one wants a big complex component > > >if it could be built from smaller components... > > >(other than performace) > > > > Absolutely they must be built out of other components. The question > > is: who does the building? I'm saying that the plugin designer > > should be able to present a complex "plugin" which is actually a > > ready-connected graph of simpler components. The alternative is for > > the plugin designer to present a "bag of bits" for the user to > > connect together. > > If we do this on the right level, we can have both. We definitely > should have a standard graph description (and preset) file format > anyway, and all we need is a way for plugin authors to provide useful > subgraphs with their plugins.
did you specify a serialization method on the plugins ? how will this be handled ? > > As to user interfaces, this is where many->one and one->many > (DSP->GUI) gets in. You might want to have a single "panel" for a > mixer, even if it's constructed from multiple DSP plugins. This is already implemented in galan and i find it very nice... I have been talking with a friend about the gui issue... and he said that an interface which lets the plugin return a bitmap would do the trick to make it toolkit independent... we could add some sort of slider interface also but this was not the issue... -- torben Hohn http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language