Steve Harris wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:02:04PM -0700, Tom Pincince wrote:
> > I see why you resist busses. I also see that you view signal flow as a
> > push process. I view audio as being pulled through the signal path (no
> > ego). The difference may prove to be profound. In a pull model the
> > plugin doesn't write to any busses, the plugin just presents its outputs
> > and the busses read from the plugins. This is what you want.
>
> Is it? There are performance gains to be had from letting the plugin write
> to the busses. c.f. long discussions of run_adding v's run_replacing.
Please don't forget that samples mixing is parallelizable while most
plugins are not. Take this in consideration if you want to embed samples
mixing in plugins.
And remember we have *three* plugin destination variants:
- in place
- add
- replace
IMO plugins need to publish their capability mask and an info about if
they allow or not parallelization (i.e. if they have some kind of stored
status).
--
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!
