On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 18:02 -0500, Paul Giblock wrote: > I suppose I don't mean to attack lv2. It is a good extensible format, > and is the product of much dedication, especially on Dave's part. I > could write my own extension and be done with it. But then we end up > with a situation like the external UI is today. > My concern is if we would ever have a standard extension for this kind > of thing when the primary maintainer considers the idea stupid, dumb, > or broken.
I have said numerous times that GL plugin UIs would be a good thing to do. There is a difference between me personally wanting to spend time inventing it, and thinking it would be a fine thing for somebody to do. If I (or any other implementer) thought it was /broken/, then yes, you would get fragmentation problems - as you should. This isn't broken, it's just not my thing. To reuse my strained metaphor, there is a lot of fundamental engine work that needs doing before I care whatsoever about that paint. Anyway, I'd actively like to see GL UIs, since I have a host that's a modular canvas and you could do some pretty awesome things there - but that doesn't mean I think high performance waveforms and visualizations and whatever is important, or anything but fluff... ...but that, in turn, doesn't mean I would try to block the tech from being made. The tech is fine. If anyone wants to invent it, please go right ahead. -dr _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
