On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 23:12 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Yes, I do not agree that portability does not matter, and that X11
everywhere is an acceptable design choice. There is certainly no
shortage of people who don't agree with you on that one, including every
single developer who has implemented an LV2 host or UI, who have always
been free to do it that way ;) Market, spoken, etc.
So far, I see only cons to your solution. Are there pros?
> The only other alternative seems to be that each plugin is either
It is obviously not useful to have hundreds of plugin UI windows open at
The real problem here is one of design, namely that all of this crap
needs to not be a burden on host and plugin authors. There is another
alternative, namely the one I have been describing (see my latest
replies to Rui in this thread).
If you're on an X11 system, then you can use X11 as a base to support
several toolkits in exactly the way you described (if those toolkits use
X11, of course). The experiment you described is an implementation
strategy, and possibly one we should use in the aforementioned library
to avoid the out-of-process overhead. The source code would be useful.
However, there is no need or even benefit to forcing UI and/or host
authors to deal with X11 directly. That is simply a poor API design, and
a nuisance for everyone.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list