It'd not quite that I want to keep my hands clean, it's that:
I want to make sure that GUI specs don't compromise a plugin's
GUI-independence. An XML approach shouldn't do this - in fact it fits very
well as a layer on top of plugin LADSPA, without denying the possibility of
other GUI approaches. Plus it allows users to design 'skins' for their
favourite plugins, something that could keep some folk very entertained ;-)
I don't have much experience with XML so I don't want to interfere too much
in the detailed design.
Incidentally, I'm coming around to thinking that a recommended GUI lower
bound, default and upper bound hint is useful in the core LADSPA spec in
addition to the current 'real' bound hints. This allows useful definitions
for things like gain controls that don't really have meaningful bounds or
defaults, essentially giving all relevant information to the host. Does
this sound sensible?
--Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Barton-Davis [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:39 PM
To: Linux-audio-dev
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ardour-0.99.8 tarball released
>OK, is the "themed" graphics mentioned not the XML engine then? I was
definitely not. the GUI's in ardour right now are built by iterating
over all the control ports and thats all.
>assuming it was. Who is Dave Benson? I was thought that LADSPA was
>Richard Furse's brainchild.
dave is involved with GDAM, where they have some experience with this
kind of thing, and was a major contributor to the discussion this
spring on an XML gui spec. richard seems to have wanted to keep his
hands clean of the gui side of things, right richard ?
--p
