On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:12:48 -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > More than that: the notion of "generic GUIs" was low on the list of > design inputs. The model was that a GUI is written for a specific > plugin, and thus knows its ports. The purpose of these GUIs is to > provide visual customization not possible when relying on the host to > build a generic GUI.
I have a vague idea about a gui that actually connects to a rack of interfaces ala reason. I have to admit I havn't actually though it through very far, but it seems like a worthwhile thing. > But OTO-OH, in my own head, I see it as the host's job to provide MIDI > control of plugin ports. I don't want to impede an alternate model, however. OK for serial MIDI, but what about OSC, UDP MIDI etc. etc. frontend plugins can definatly help with wacky stuff here. A canny host could even spawn two fronends for one plugin. > As for lambda networks: my impression has been that these would always > be represented as LADSPA plugins themselves, complete with their own > ports, etc. They will havethier own ports (by definition), but how they are implemented is still up for grabs. > Also, the more I think about it, the notion of somebody starting up a > GUI that "connects" to an otherwise "hidden" plugin strikes me as > silly. Its a typical geek thing to want to do, but I can see little > real world value in it. The host loaded and runs the plugin; the host > should start the GUI. The only reason I can think of is for testing. - Steve
