On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 23:18 +0000, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
[Snip a bunch of irrelevant hand-wavey noise about the past that
completely ignores all discussion about the solution]
> anyway, the lv2 ui extension _needs_ to be extended. to be "de facto"
No, again, it does not. Not a single argument that it does, or a single
suggestion as to what these modifications would be, have come up in this
thread. Please stop harping on the point that the current situation is
inadequate - nobody disagrees, least of all me. This includes your point
that the external UI extension is the only currently existing solution
to external UIs. Nobody disagrees, least of all me. Both of these things
are blatantly obvious and not under debate.
> i'm not saying lv2_external_ui is the ultimate and correct solution
I have described the various cons in detail. This entire discussion
itself is evidence that there is a problem.
You are essentially arguing (in this latest reply) that all this
bridging stuff should be copy-paste duplicated in every UI instead of
every host (i.e. not considering the UI author's perspective). Globally,
this is an even worse solution since there are far more plugins than
I have described in detail a solution that makes the LV2 UI situation
"de facto toolkit agnostic", which does not require modifying the UI
extension. As far as I can tell, this is a pretty good solution, and the
only one that doesn't have obvious problems. It meets the needs of
everyone who has voiced them, including you. It solves the
fragmentation/compatibility problems. Do you have any actual feedback on
this? Particularly, any reasons I have missed why it is not a good
solution? You seem to want to argue "against" me, but there's no mention
of my proposed solution at all here... unless new information comes up,
I'll take that as a sign that this is indeed the way to go, and get on
with doing it.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list