Karl MacMillan wrote:
>
> One of the design decisions of LADSPA and the proposed LAAGA is that all
> audio data will be floating point. This is not a limitation of the api
> but a good design decision. You have described conversion between formats
> as having no cost in the past - this is not true.
??? One of us must be drunk that day. Are you abstemious? ;-))))
This is obviously not true, conversion costs. What I'm saying is that
it's not needed.
An audio component may treat only *one* format, nothing force it to
handle all.
> What drawbacks to you see to multiple api layers?
- the need to write different input module (in every application) if I
want to read from a file, a PCM capture stream, an FX that read from a
PCM capture stream, the output from an arbitrary other audio component.
- simmetric with output
- less standardization of audio components
- less flexybility (you can't have arbitrary links, it's like to have
tools in your sound studio that use different connectors)
- more complex full API for developers (as they need to understand/learn
several)
> What are the chances that the kernel developers will accept the alsa lib
> (which is stated to be necessary to the alsa kernel api) if it contains a
> complex application framework?
The discussion is completely orthogonal to this: alsa-lib is fully
modular and this might be a different shared object (in my mind
*several* different shared object). I'm advocating an API not a bloated
alsa-lib.
--
Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
ALSA project http://www.alsa-project.org
It sounds good!
