2008/6/2 Nedko Arnaudov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Stefano D'Angelo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> There is nothing wrong with using LV2 (and probably LADSPA too) on >>> non-UNIX platforms. >> >> Just an example: sometime ago I asked on IRC why there was not a >> global init()/fini() function for LADSPA and was answered that ELF >> defines .init and .fini sections. Which is fine for ELF-based systems >> and other systems having similar stuff (all biggest platforms?), but >> where there is none... > > Windows has DllMain() instead.
As said, probably most biggest platforms have that. However I don't see any reason to exclude little unknown platforms, since there can easily be no OS-specific part in the core spec. >> Then I see this in LV2: >> >> The environment variable LV2_PATH, if present, should >> * contain a colon-separated path indicating directories (containing >> * plugin bundle subdirectories) that should be searched (in order) >> * for plugins. >> >> Doesn't it sound a bit UNIX-centered? (colon separated on Windows for >> example?) > > I bet nobody will complain if Windows developer requests to extend the > documentation with using semicolons instead on Windows. But you agree this is in contrast with the API? >>>> b. Some things which, IMHO, belong to the core of a sound processing >>>> API like "time stretching" are almost impossible (LADSPA) or overly >>>> complex (LV2) to do with such APIs, probably because they weren't >>>> designed for this kind of usage; in other words, the audience is quite >>>> different IMO. >>> >>> What is complex with LV2 exactly? LV2 is designed to be extendable. >> >> Apart from the RDF/Turtle thing which I won't pop up for the goodness >> of everyone :-), the complexity is not in LV2 itself but in its usage >> in applications where sound processing is not a central topic, IMO. > > VSTs are much more complex IMHO Absolutely, in fact I know of no media player using them. >> Yes, it's a powerful, extendable API which can do pretty much >> everything... but compare it to the broken and ridiculous XMMS effect >> plugin API and see the difference of work required to the host >> author.... don't you get anything? > > you should compare XMMS plugins to GSteamer plugins, really... Well, so you're saying that LADSPA/LV2 are not for them? >> Another example: doing something like that "time stretching" thing >> would mean having, among other stuff, another run()-like callback in a >> dedicated extensions, and the original run() wouldn't work also. > > You say it cannot be implemented as extention? No. I'm saying it can be done, but is very unnatural and overly complicated. >> Then I see reasons for handling interleaved channel data, but you >> probably already have that under LV2 or you can do that anyway, and >> also handling an arbitrary number of inputs and outputs in the case of >> a media player could be not worth the effort. > > I dont think there is port type for interleaved channel data defined > yet. If someone really needs it nobody can stop him. That's what I was saying already, but again: yet another extension. >>>> Then I have quite clear ideas about the GUI thing and, guess what, I >>>> think I'm going to do something similar to LADSPA XML GUI DTD, only >>>> coded inside the plugin itself. It seems like that in this kind of >>>> applications sound processing is not a central topic, so >>>> auto-generated GUIs are acceptable, and they solve the GUI toolkit and >>>> portability problems totally. >>> >>> Why not apply this approach to LV2? >> >> See above. > > where? complexity? I wouldnt call XML GUI DTD simple... I was referring to using extensions for things which could handled done more easily by the host if using their own application-specific API. Anyway I'm not going to use XML files for that, but that XML GUI DTD can be inspiring. >> Again, do you think media player authors would prefer to fight with >> extensions (and write some if something is missing) instead of writing >> their own API and be happy with it? >> >> Of course, if something is missing in EPAMP, that requires a new >> version... and that's why I'm trying to talk with them already. > > Using plugins in media players is brain dead idea, but if they want that > they have quite a lot of possibilities anyway. Using LV2 plugins through > helper library like slv2 is really easy. So, how many media players have that or are going to do that? I guess numbers are not on your side. :-\ Stefano _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
