Several people have suggested that LADSPA is not a great name for what we
are calling LADSPA 2. Reasons for this include:
The L, it's not really linux specific, and though /we/ know that its the L
of LAD, its not obvious to people outside.
The S, it ain't really going to be simple. For some
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:33:50 +0200, Leonard paniq Ritter wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 23:02 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I think the easiest thing would be for the plugin to list its required
> > features in the data file, then the host can weed them out without even
> > getting that far.
>
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
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 22:05 -0400, Phil Frost wrote:
> 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 ho
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 i
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:44:51AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Leonard \ wrote:
>
> > http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/
> > no ogg support
>
> Ogg support has been "in progress" for about 2 years now:
>
> http://www.metadecks.org/software/libsndfile/
>
> Feel free to ping Conra
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 19:59 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:23 +0200, Leonard "paniq" Ritter wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:46 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > Plugins must be able to refuse hosts and hosts must be able to refuse
> > > plugins. It's the only way to a
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:23 +0200, Leonard "paniq" Ritter wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:46 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > Plugins must be able to refuse hosts and hosts must be able to refuse
> > plugins. It's the only way to allow extensions. I _guarantee_ plugins
> > will exist that some
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:46 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> Plugins must be able to refuse hosts and hosts must be able to refuse
> plugins. It's the only way to allow extensions. I _guarantee_ plugins
> will exist that some hosts just don't want (they already do with
> LADSPA1), and some plugins
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 00:33 +0200, Leonard "paniq" Ritter wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 23:02 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I think the easiest thing would be for the plugin to list its required
> > features in the data file, then the host can weed them out without even
> > getting that far.
>
>
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 23:11 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:18PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 22:47 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > I'm in a cruft killing mood.
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever used ImplementationData? I know I haven't, and I goggle
> If we ever have an ABI change in the future then the LADSPA 1
> pseudo-compatibility will be lost anyway.
there is a difference between fixing and recompiling code ;)
--
-- leonard "paniq" ritter
-- http://www.mjoo.org
-- http://www.paniq.org
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:41:41PM +0200, Leonard paniq Ritter wrote:
> LADSPA is not a sexy name. please consider using something more erotic
> this time.. acronyms are so 80s :)
its retro, it ALL going back to the eighties.
>
> i'm going to read the header file now.
>
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 23:02 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> I think the easiest thing would be for the plugin to list its required
> features in the data file, then the host can weed them out without even
> getting that far.
yup.
> The plugin may just choose to modify its behaviour, not refuse, so t
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:18PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 22:47 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I'm in a cruft killing mood.
> >
> > Has anyone ever used ImplementationData? I know I haven't, and I goggled
> > for it, but all I found was the ladspa.h file, which has a
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 05:58:08PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 23:58 +0200, Leonard "paniq" Ritter wrote:
> > Ok, some thoughts about the headerfile:
> [snip]
> > after reading this i do not see why a new ladspa header is required.
> > there are barely any changes in 2. i t
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:58:23PM +0200, Leonard paniq Ritter wrote:
> Ok, some thoughts about the headerfile:
>
> - i would find it helpful if the header also contained a definition of
> a valid LADSPA URI, along with some examples.
Yes, we were discussing this on IRC an hour or so ago. Any URI
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 22:47 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> I'm in a cruft killing mood.
>
> Has anyone ever used ImplementationData? I know I haven't, and I goggled
> for it, but all I found was the ladspa.h file, which has a comment to the
> affect of: we're not sure why you'd need this, but, just
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 23:58 +0200, Leonard "paniq" Ritter wrote:
> Ok, some thoughts about the headerfile:
[snip]
> after reading this i do not see why a new ladspa header is required.
> there are barely any changes in 2. i think this is going to become more
> confusing than helpful, especially sin
hi *!
the linux audio conference 2006, which takes place at the zkm in
karlsruhe/germany from april 27 to april 30, will be streamed live for
your convenience, inspiration and enjoyment.
all presentations (which are listed on
http://lac.zkm.de/2006/program.shtml) are covered as ogg vorbis audio
Ok, some thoughts about the headerfile:
- i would find it helpful if the header also contained a definition of
a valid LADSPA URI, along with some examples.
- passing the HostFeatures in instantiate is a bit too late. i wouldnt
want to instantiate a plugin first to find out if they match i.e. whe
I'm in a cruft killing mood.
Has anyone ever used ImplementationData? I know I haven't, and I goggled
for it, but all I found was the ladspa.h file, which has a comment to the
affect of: we're not sure why you'd need this, but, just incase here's a
void *.
If anoyone has used it, or has a potenti
Leonard \ wrote:
> http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/
> no ogg support
Ogg support has been "in progress" for about 2 years now:
http://www.metadecks.org/software/libsndfile/
Feel free to ping Conrad Parker about this.
Erik
--
+-
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 05:40:59PM +0100, tom christie wrote:
> > Sorry, I just dont feel that motivated by this.
> No problem :) just wanted to know if anyone else thought it was an
> important point.
>
>
> Two other concerns...
>
>
> A) There is no built-in way of a host distinguishing betwee
LADSPA is not a sexy name. please consider using something more erotic
this time.. acronyms are so 80s :)
i'm going to read the header file now.
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 15:11 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:29:31AM -0600, Hans Fugal wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 at 11:28 +0
maybe someone here can help?
i need a decoder library that works on win32/linux, can decode
wav/ogg/mp3, can seek with sample precision and supports rendering of
userdefined frame sizes
I'd say libsndfile, but it doesn't do MP3.
which isnt that bad tho. i hate mp3.
http://www.mega-nerd.com/lib
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 11:28 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> I've added the port shortnames (ladspa:shortname). This is still tentative
> in my mind, but as long as it doesn't cause any serious objections it will
> stay.
>
> Following a suggestion from Richard Furze I've removed the LADSPA_Data
> type
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 17:40 +0100, tom christie wrote:
> A) There is no built-in way of a host distinguishing between a LADSPA
> 1.1 and a LADSPA 2.x plugin. (Unless I'm missing something?)
>
> Would it make sense to change the name of the discovery function?
> eg... ladspa2_descriptor() instead o
> Sorry, I just dont feel that motivated by this.
No problem :) just wanted to know if anyone else thought it was an
important point.
Two other concerns...
A) There is no built-in way of a host distinguishing between a LADSPA
1.1 and a LADSPA 2.x plugin. (Unless I'm missing something?)
Would
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:29:31AM -0600, Hans Fugal wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 at 11:28 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I'd hate to see a future where there are plugins for translating between
> > different kinds of boring PCM data, that would suck, but this could allow
>
> Hmm, well couldn't we
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:26:20AM -0600, Hans Fugal wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 at 10:07 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I'd like to see LADSPA 2.0 plugins always being directories, wether we go
> > for bundles or not. It gives the plugin somewhere to stash its auxilarry
> > data (precompiled tabl
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 at 11:28 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> I've added the port shortnames (ladspa:shortname). This is still tentative
> in my mind, but as long as it doesn't cause any serious objections it will
> stay.
>
> Following a suggestion from Richard Furze I've removed the LADSPA_Data
> typ
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 at 10:07 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 12:44:03PM -0400, Taybin Rutkin wrote:
> > I like the bundle idea. What are the reasons to not use it? Reasons to
> > use it include ease of distribution (especially on other platforms like
> > osx).
> >
> > I th
Sorry, I just dont feel that motivated by this. We have a bunch of code
and experience around the struct format, and we know were going to need
something equivalent for the forseeable future, so I dont see the point in
changing it over just for the sake of it.
Sure, for some possible future ABI-in
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 11:28 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> I've added the port shortnames (ladspa:shortname). This is still tentative
> in my mind, but as long as it doesn't cause any serious objections it will
> stay.
>
> Following a suggestion from Richard Furze I've removed the LADSPA_Data
> type
I've added the port shortnames (ladspa:shortname). This is still tentative
in my mind, but as long as it doesn't cause any serious objections it will
stay.
Following a suggestion from Richard Furze I've removed the LADSPA_Data
type and replaced it with void. The ports are datatyped in the data, bu
Okay, I ought to have qualified my 'will always break...' that's
clearly not true.
But there is still real inflexibility in using a struct based API.
eg. Say a developer comes up with a nice extension (perhaps to allow a
plugin to deal with multi-channel IO / non-causal audio effects /
alter the a
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 12:44:03PM -0400, Taybin Rutkin wrote:
> I like the bundle idea. What are the reasons to not use it? Reasons to use
> it include ease of distribution (especially on other platforms like osx).
>
> I think bundles are a great idea that should be adopted by other unixen.
>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 10:26:09AM +1000, Loki Davison wrote:
> On 4/25/06, Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 06:40:32 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > > For the sake of the record, it's been duked out o
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 04:12:11 -0400, Jesse Chappell wrote:
> On 4/24/06, tom christie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In the former, any change in the descriptor structure will always break
> > backwards compatibility.
> > In the later, new functions can extend the core functionality without
>
40 matches
Mail list logo
