On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:55:55 -0400 Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it takes *way* more lines of code than that to use a ladspa plugin in > this way, and thats for the existing header-only specification. > > one the design goals of a good plugin API is to make life simple for > plugins, because there are lots of them and presumably quite a few > authors too, at a certain expense to hosts, because there are relatively > few of them and their authors are likely to be more skilled at what they > are doing. > > there are lots of little gotchas even with the amazingly simple API that > LADSPA 1 represents, and quite a few of these will become simpler or > will vanish with the metadata scheme that steve has outlined. Erm, just to voice my opinion on this LADSPA 2 thing i kinda hijack your post to Vote++; @Phil: Look at the example plugin. Life does get easier with this. Flo -- Palimm Palimm! http://tapas.affenbande.org
