Hey Peter, That screenshot is impressive, it might be a good idea.
First, some technical thoughts. I don't know about ardour, and I'm wondering if their widgets are meant to be re-used outside or their project. If their interface is not stable, it might become annoying to follow it, and tempting to fork and maintain an older version. If the interface is meant to be stable and re-used, that's really cool, cause it also means that C is not a necessity: one could think of binding that library to other languages. Regarding C, I don't think that speed is an issue: even Python is fast enough for graphical interfaces. And I believe that the advantages of an high-level language are important, for memory management at least. Finally, isn't ardour meant to process audio as audio-file, rather than audio-stream ? That could mean headackes too. Now at an higher level. I must say I didn't try rocket for quite a while. I think that if you go the ardour way, we should make sure that your effort is most useful. In particular, I'm still wondering how rocket works with configurations of liquidsoap that are very different from the KUBE's script ? I vaguely remember of an admin editing a configuration saying how rocket should look like, so that DJs get something as simple as possible. Making sure that the admin can create an useful interface for any script would be the grail. Does it sounds like your project ? I also remember that some of your widgets were meant for several liquidsoap operators connected together in a particular way: this could be described in the config file too. I have to apologize that liquidsoap still does not offer much information (e.g. via the server) about the source's graph / the script it is running, cause that would make the rocket administrators' work simpler. Other thoughts ? -- David
