David Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to state how I see
> the ladspa situation in order to fuel
> discussion of more specific problems.
>
Well, personally I would like to see building any standard for
application/plug-in either require a plug-in only return a data stream
such as slider values, have that as a necessary option. I am mostly
thinking of using the LADSPA standard with text applications. Someone
designing a nice plug-in for doing audio work is of no use if the
output/controls cannot be accessed with anything other than a
graphical tool set of some sort.
It seems to me that discussing GUI output should not be part of the
standard at all. A well defined set of I/O controls is necessary, but
their interfaces should be separate from the standard. So, if an
organization wants to stay LADSPA complient they would keep the
plug-ins and user interface in two modules. That way one application
designer doesn't need to necessarily use the I/O controls which are
part of the plug-in. If another developer wants to build an automated
fudgie to process audio data, they are not encombered by having to
figure out how to get around the I/O interface.
> This is a call for comments -- i am hoping we
> can hone in on these points -- particularly,
> we could begin moving in the direction of 2A or 2B
> if we decide this is good.
>
Woops, what about (C)?
> - dave
>
Kirk
--
Kirk Reiser The Computer Braille Facility
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Western Ontario
phone: (519) 661-3061
