On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:51:58 +0100
Kristian Amlie <krist...@amlie.name> wrote:
>On 28.01.2025 10:45, Will Godfrey wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 06:44:43 +0100
>> ichthyo <p...@ichthyostega.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27.01.25 10:04, Kristian Amlie wrote:
>>>>> So why don't we do this: Basically we save the configuration exactly as
>>>>> Hermann describes, except instead of saving it to "instance-0", we save it
>>>>> to "LV2-default" (or some other suitable name). And new LV2 instances also
>>>>> pull their defaults from here.
>>> On 27.01.25 18:53, ichthyo wrote:
>>>> This seems like a much better solution for me!
>>>> ...
>>>> We'd have to extract the build-up of the file name, which is currently
>>>> done interwoven with the other config handling. But besides that, this
>>>> would be a really minimal change and would solve all the problems,
>>>> by addressing the root cause: essentially we are creating a new kind
>>>> of "instance", which is a LV2 instance, and separate from standalone
>>>> instance.
>>>
>>>
>>> This morning I was doubtful if the above description is clear enough,
>>> and -- moreover -- if it is really this simple.
>>>
>>> Thus I tried with an experimental patch. See attached.
>>>
>>>
>>> Findings:
>>>
>>> - indeed it works and is basically simple to implement
>>>
>>> - the bulk of the changes was to comb through the codebase and to
>>> find all those "other locations" where the config location was
>>> yet again built from scratch, instead of using the member fields
>>> of the Config object. Hopefully I haven't missed anything.
>>>
>>> - deliberately I've left the *window* files allone, so they still
>>> use the old identification scheme
>>>
>>> - one /relevant necessary change/ is in InstanceManager::Instance::startUp()
>>> There we need to set the Config::isLV2 flag earlier, since it is now
>>> already evaluated when bootstrapping the config, before we start the
>>> instance.
>>>
>>>
>>> And now comes the Fun Fact:
>>>
>>> The implementation of getalldata / putalldata is different than we
>>> assumed in our discussion, insofar it *does not include the config*
>>> ROFL!!!
>>> It was so from the first versions when Andrew added state support for LV2.
>>>
>>> Thus, the state handling in LV2 is not as it should be, because the
>>> config settings for the plugin-instances are not captured. Rather, this
>>> data is always loaded from the instance config in the user's setup.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course,the results of our discussion seem to imply that this should
>>> be changed, and getalldata() / putalldata() should better delegate to
>>> an implementation in the Config-object, like Config::saveSessionData()
>>>
>>> I have not done that in the patch, but for a quick experiment
>>> I added temporarily direct calls to the config save/load functions
>>> into getalldata() / putalldata().
>>> And then everyhing works as intended!
>>>
>>> -- Hermann
>>>
>>>
>>> PS: this is just meant as a proof-of concept or reference-point
>>> for further discussion. This patch is also in my Github-Repo, master.
>>
>> Well!
>> That is a surprise. I had always thought it was included. Good catch.
>> Mind you, the whole of config is like a rabbit warren and pretty much always
>> has been :(
>
>Lol, seriously!?
>
>That might explain how I ended up in those "wiped-out-session"
>situations earlier. Perhaps I had enabled program change and it really
>did affect every LV2 instance, even pre-saved ones. TBH I don't remember
>the exact details, since I've been very careful *not* to enable it for
>years already.
>
>In any case, I agree with the conclusions (patch looks sensible too!),
>and I'm glad we finally have a way forward. This was a tough discussion! 😄
>
We seem to have an agreement :)
The only thing I would ask, is to leave the windows as they are for now. I'm
working through the idea of embedding them in the structure so they can be
managed from the CLI as well as directly in the GUI (and any other input source
we may later add).
I also have an idea of how to do this so that the GUI is always *told* what
size and position to open windows rather than having to ask.
All windows have default sizes if no data has been stored, and currently for
unseen windows the position tends to be all heaped on top of each other. I'm
thinking of changing this so that by default they only partially overlap.
--
Will J Godfrey {apparently now an 'elderly'}
https://willgodfrey.bandcamp.com/
http://yoshimi.github.io
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
_______________________________________________
Yoshimi-devel mailing list
Yoshimi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/yoshimi-devel
