For what it's worth, I think the omission of strings for enumerated ports is the most
blatant omission of ladspa, and it must be rectified. The implementation details are
not as important to me as the fact that it gets done somehow.
RDF is not an acceptable place for this data because enumerate
Oh, here I go...
On Wednesday 10 March 2004 16.21, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Robert Jonsson wrote:
> > Richards decision would rely on the fact that LAD is in agreement, don't
> > you think?
>
> Yes. But define 'LAD in agreement' (Robert) or 'what we agre
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Robert Jonsson wrote:
> Richards decision would rely on the fact that LAD is in agreement, don't you
> think?
Yes. But define 'LAD in agreement' (Robert) or 'what we agree on (Steve)'.
To me this means there is no formal approval procedure.
Anyway thi
On Wednesday 10 March 2004 15.34, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 02:30:23PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:22:33 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:57:21PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > > There is a formal approval meca
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:34:47 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 02:30:23PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:22:33 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:57:21PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is a formal
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 02:30:23PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:22:33 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:57:21PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> >
> > > There is a formal approval mecahnism, its whatever Richard will bless.
> > > He contacted me
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:22:33 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:57:21PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
>
> > There is a formal approval mecahnism, its whatever Richard will bless.
> > He contacted me off-list: he is still around but hasnt been activily
> > participating.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:20:40AM -0500, Taybin Rutkin wrote:
> Wait, I just implemented support for RDF presets in Ardour. Is that for naught?
> We're doing something else now?
No, your work is not in vain.
My proposal is specifically targeted at those hosts that do not use RDF.
ATM, they hav
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:57:21PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> There is a formal approval mecahnism, its whatever Richard will bless.
> He contacted me off-list: he is still around but hasnt been activily
> participating. I'l pass on whtaever we eventually agree on and he will
> either send it ba
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA extension - Formal proposal.
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> To those who have followed the debate, I changed the original name
> LADSPA_HINT_ENUMERATED to LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED. This more correctly
> represents the i
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:55 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:36AM +, Steve Harris wrote:
>
> > A variety of non-standard implenentations at this point would be a very
> > bad thing, and I *will not* be coerced into supporting some illconceived
> > extension
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:36AM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> A variety of non-standard implenentations at this point would be a very
> bad thing, and I *will not* be coerced into supporting some illconceived
> extension by fait accompli.
Agreed, and fair enough. The problem is that there is no
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:21:17PM +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> Why should Mr./Mrs. X be bothered with LADSPA's awkward evolution on
> LAD?
Why should Mr./Mrs. X complain on ardour-users about a bug in a plugin ?
If ardour reports the plugin is buggy, he/she should complain to the plugin's
author. Se
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 12:30, Steve Harris wrote:
> In that case there is a bug in AudioTwingTwang, its as simple as that. I
> have no idea why people think they can get away with releasing
> non-conformant plugins *cough* ;) In many ways its worse than release
> buggy apps, because it can bring dow
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:47:32PM +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> Quoting Fons' proposal:
> If there are any ports using LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED, then their
> label strings follow after all port names (i.e. the port names
> remain in their normal place). In this case the range of valid
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:30:24AM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> In that case there is a bug in AudioTwingTwang, its as simple as that. I
> have no idea why people think they can get away with releasing
> non-conformant plugins *cough* ;) In many ways its worse than release
> buggy apps, because i
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:47:32 +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> Quoting Fons' proposal:
> If there are any ports using LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED, then their
> label strings follow after all port names (i.e. the port names
> remain in their normal place). In this case the range of valid
>
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 12:11, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:14:02 +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> > Well, since these are _hints_ I'd suggest to just ignore
> > LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED in this case. Otherwise a simpler minded host
> > (applyplugin) might let you use this plugin without prob
[Fons Adriaensen]
>LADSPA_HINT_ENUMERATED to LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED. This more correctly
>represents the idea, and also allows Tim to use LADSPA_HINT_ENUMERATED
>for his proposal which is complementary to this one.
thanks, but it should at least have occurred to you that my proposal
a) has no need
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:21:17 +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> I've been using my favourite LADSPA plugin AudioTwingTwang in Sweep
> 0.8.2 for a long time. I have to admit it's UI looks a little odd but I
> really love this effect.
> Now I'm trying to record some of my music which no longer fits into my
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:46:03 +0100, Dr. Matthias Nagorni wrote:
> I hope that Tom will follow your suggestion in his plugin, so that
> I can modify AlsaModularSynth to support Combobox selectors for LADSPA
> plugin GUIs.
Dont you think its a bit counter-productive to encourage people
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 11:25, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:14:02AM +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
>
> > Well, since these are _hints_ I'd suggest to just ignore
> > LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED in this case. Otherwise a simpler minded host
> > (applyplugin) might let you use this plugin wi
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:14:02 +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> Well, since these are _hints_ I'd suggest to just ignore
> LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED in this case. Otherwise a simpler minded host
> (applyplugin) might let you use this plugin without problems while your
> sophisticated pro app refuses to touch
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:38:59 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> I'm in favour of dropping that 'slightly wider' requirement. I've never
> followed it in my own plugins, and never will.
Me too, and agreed.
- Steve
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:48:38PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> I think its easier on host to change it to recommend (or require) that
> INTEGER bounds should be integers and plugins should accept values with
> some tollerance, eg. rounding to the nearest integer value, and this would
> be require
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> To those who have followed the debate, I changed the original name
> LADSPA_HINT_ENUMERATED to LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED. This more correctly
> represents the idea, and also allows Tim to use LADSPA_HINT_ENUMERATED
> for his proposal which is complementary
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:14:02AM +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> Well, since these are _hints_ I'd suggest to just ignore
> LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED in this case. Otherwise a simpler minded host
> (applyplugin) might let you use this plugin without problems while your
> sophisticated pro app refuses to tou
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 01:12, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:36:54 +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 21:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > > /* This hint must be used only together with LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER.
> >
> > [snip explanation on multiway switches]
> >
> > > #de
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:48:38PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> this would require some rewording of the LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER paragraph (I
> think this might be an improvement anyway), currently it says:
> "Any bounds set should be slightly wider than the actual integer range
> required to avoid f
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:12:45AM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:36:54 +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> > #define LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED(0x400 | LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER)
> I think it would be safer to /not/ enforce this and require the plugin
> authors to explicitly say LADSPA
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:36:54 +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 21:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > /* This hint must be used only together with LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER.
>
> [snip explanation on multiway switches]
>
> > #define LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED0x400
>
> Since this is a spe
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 21:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> /* This hint must be used only together with LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER.
[snip explanation on multiway switches]
> #define LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED0x400
Since this is a special hint which implies LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER,
shouldn't this be made clea
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:52:58 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> /* This hint must be used only together with LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER.
>It indicates that the port corresponds to a multiway switch selecting
>between options that have no natural numerical value. A port using this
>option wou
Hello list,
After much debate, I propose to extend the current LADPSA 1.1 interface
specification in the way documented below. Two new LADSPA_HINT bits are
introduced. Both can be ignored by existing hosts without any ill
consequences.
The purpose of the first new bit is to allow simple hosts tha
34 matches
Mail list logo
