On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Paul Davis wrote: > >Umm, it will certainly work, though syntactically I'd prefer > >an URL style notation [maybe do communication through http > >protocol and use a browser for showing the GUI!? I.e. just > >have each LADSPA plugin run its own webserver.]. > > [ ... laugh? ... cry? ... ??? ... ]
:) > since the type of GUIs we're talking about could only be written in > Java if they were present in a browser, this doesn't seem to help very > much with anything. remember: all existing LADSPA hosts have > facilities for building default GUIs. so the issue is not how to build > some GUI, its how to build the very specific GUI envisaged by the > programmer (who may be the plugin author, or not). java-within-browser > doesn't seem likely to be what most programmers (or users) would have > in mind. > > more seriously, do you think there should be support for the "GUI is > not running on the same system as the LADSPA host" case ? Well, that idea was brought in by someone else - I can imagine running a distributed host on a cluster for rendering purposes, so its not completely impossible someone wants to do this. Also I thought of something like http as a protocol for changing/advertising the parameters, not for constructing the actual GUI (altough this would be possible and ease early testing of the mechanism). And a java GUI communicating with a LADSPA plugin through some standard protocol isnt the worst thing I can think of - at least it'd be cross platform. I dont know java very well, but I can imagine java having support for the http protocol builtin. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/ The GLAME Project: http://www.glame.de/
