On 12/8/2009, "David Robillard" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 00:05 +0100, james morris wrote: >> On 12/8/2009, "David Robillard" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 23:39 +0100, james morris wrote: >> >> On 12/8/2009, "Steve Harris" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 12 Aug 2009, at 23:20, David Robillard wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Allow one group of ports to have either no replication, or the same >> >> >> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being, >> >> >> controls tend to stick to 1, audio tends to get replicated, but we may >> >> >> want to replicate the controls to match audio. So, a single plugin >> >> >> could do all of the above cases in a single instance, if the author >> >> >> wants to do it that way. >> >> > >> >> >That makes sense to me. >> >> > >> >> >> >> that's what i thought what i said implied [scratches head]. >> > >> >.... I don't think "or ganging the control ports" really quite conveys >> >the idea entirely ;) >> >> Don't be daft! I'll admit my LP filter example was less than concise. >> >> >> >> Allow one group of ports to have either no replication, or the same >> >> >> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being, >> >> Which group of ports? The output group from the previous plugin in the >> chain? Why not just the number of channels? That's all that's needed >> for the simple case I'm talking about. > >So the guy claiming he described the solution already is still working >on grasping the problem? :P </daft> Yeah, it's a rounded multifaceted approach from all angles. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
