> why support the difference between ports and controls ? > This is done in the C galan and tony somehow managed to remove this > difference in the C++ galan.
Because throughout all the XAP discussions we have made it clear that controls are event-driven and ports are audio-rate data (specifically audio data). Controls are more flexible in their data typing. We have argued many hours about th ebenefits/drawbacks of using normalized float data for everything and the decision we came to was that it just isn't the best model. I point you at th earchives for the discussions :) > I have not read much of this code but tony said he managed to remove > this. LADSPA is much the same way - connect anything to anything. But several people in the XAP discussion feel that normalized data (0 to 1.0 or whatever) is bad. I am still of the position that I could be convinced to support two basic control types: numerical (normalized) and other (strings, data block, etc). This, however, is still not the same as audio-rate controls, which is what you get when you plug an oscillator into a knob. The simplest concept is that they are different things. Audio and Control data. Reconsidering this notion would takes us WAY back to early XAP discussions. Maybe that is OK - anyone want to make a case for a new fundamental model? Tim
