On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 22:05 -0400, Phil Frost wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:11:10AM +0200, Leonard paniq Ritter wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 19:59 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > If you think the header should be all the documentation required, then > > > you completely Don't Get It on a fundamental level. Read the example > > > plugin - all of it. > > > > i was able to implement a working ladspa host implementation only from > > the header, and that was a good experience. i would like it if it could > > stay that way. a tiny reference to an additional document that should be > > read in the header would also be cool. not mentioning required > > literature is unfriendly ;) > > You are not alone on this one. I think it's great to have as much data > as possible in a place that need not be dlopened to access. However, if > I have to learn to use some whizz-bang library to read yet another > markup language, spend an hour at w3c to learn about all these > web-inspired formats, and grok some ladspa-specific schema to manipulate > a plugin, I think this Simple Plugin API has missed the mark. > > Now, obviously the current example is incomplete, but whenever this > stuff is done, I shouldn't have to write more than 5 lines of C to shove > some bits through a plugin, and it shouldn't take me more than 5 minutes > from the time I google "ladspa documentation" to learn to do it. > > If browsing or using ladspa plugins would require more than 5 lines of C > or learning some new technology or library that does far more than I > care about, I suggest the ladspa sdk include a well documented, simple > convenience library to do the things that any ladspa host would want to > do. This includes things like finding available plugins, and querying > them for version, description, documentation references, and loading. > > If everything I need to know to use ladspa won't reasonably fit in a > header, it isn't simple.
You're in luck. I'm already in the process of writing said library. :) Loading and using a LADSPA2 plugin (using the library) will be significantly less code than loading a LADSPA1, and certainly be a _lot_ more readable. -DR-
