linuxaudio.org

2011/2/26 David Robillard :

quoted text
> On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 15:11 +0100, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:

>> 2011/2/25 David Robillard :

>> > On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 21:09 +0100, Olivier Guilyardi wrote:

>> >> On 02/25/2011 08:57 PM, David Robillard wrote:

>> >>

>> >> >> It's a few months ago now that I investigated LV2. IIRC, at that time I

>> >> >> concluded that this wasn't an option because SLV2 was GPL'ed. But things are

>> >> >> changing IIUC :)

>> >> >

>> >> > You never asked. I would have changed it... but I am not psychic ;)

>> >>

>> >> It's not always easy to discuss about religious matters, such as licenses ;)

>> >>

>> >> That said there is another big problem. This glib dependency, it's way too heavy

>> >> for mobile deployment.

>> >

>> > Glib was the most effective route of getting the job done - rewriting

>> > the few bits that are required is not an effective use of my time right

>> > now (it's not exposed in the API, so it's not a compatibility issue, and

>> > there's a ton of more pressing LV2 things that need doing).

>> >

>> > I'm not a huge fan of wheel-reinventing, and on PCs glib is about as

>> > unoffensive a dependency as they come. On mobile, I guess that meg or so

>> > actually makes a difference.

>> >

>> > Replacing glib will not be very difficult, very little of it is used:

>> > just a balanced BST, dynamic array, and ideally a hash table or trie

>> > other appropriate structure for string interning (the BST would do for

>> > this part, with a bit of a performance cost). Good old-fashioned data

>> > structure implementation is my favourite thing to do, but unfortunately

>> > there is no shortage of more pragmatic things that need doing ;)

>> >

>> > Perhaps Stefano's NASPRO core work will do, or using C++ internally, or

>> > just tearing the required bits out of glib itself. Sqlite has an

>> > in-memory hash table IIRC. Code abounds.

>> >

>> > Present a viable alternative, and I'll switch sord/slv2 to it, but I

>> > have no good reason to invest time in reinventing glib right now.

>>

>> Given the discussions we had already, NASPRO core could be a viable alternative.

>>

>> Pros:

>> - no dependencies apart from libc and libm

>> - size (181K without stripping on Arch Linux x86-64, -O2)

>> - high portability, little and confined platform-specific code,

>> compiler-specific (symbol visibility, etc.) code confined to a small

>> header

>> - gracefully handles platform-specific conventions (i.e., ':' vs ';'

>> in path variables, zero-length prefixes in path variables under *nix,

>> directory separators, etc.)

>> - total amount of code is circa 7.5k lines, including comments and

>> public headers

>> - UTF-8 support, conversion from/to UTF-16 LE, serious UTF-8 grapheme

>> counting is supported

>> - thread safety (e.g., data types are synchronized at a very granular

>> level, but allow you to have more coarse synchronization if you want)

>> - extremely low memory footprint

>> - locale-independent asprintf() and vasprintf(), C99 level (except

>> "%lc" and "%ls" conversions, possibly they are not even needed if

>> using UTF-8)

>> - semi-serious, integrated and as-lightweight-as-it-can-be

>> error/message reporting mechanism

>> - precise and well defined error checking and error codes

>> - includes directory traversal, dynamic loading

>> - well documented

>>

>> Cons:

>> - not yet released

>> - no real test suite and not extensively tested

>> - currently implemented data types: doubly linked lists and AVL trees only

>> - not yet ported to non POSIX platforms (i.e., Windows)

>> - API/ABI are "stable enough", but can't guarantee for total stability

>> in the next future (i.e., no big changes will happen, yet something

>> might change)

>> - no locale-independent sscanf() or similar

>> - no UTF16-BE support/conversion

>> - till now, a one man effort

>>

>> That is, it is certainly possible to make it become viable to replace

>> SLV2, but this is not high priority for me at the moment. Once the new

>> NASPRO release is out I can consider whether to do the work, since I

>> want to port SLV2 to Windows right after.

>>

>> The decision, however, depends on whether Dave would like that or not.

>

> Sure. Sounds good, probably a good choice, and it would be nice if your

> work - originally intended to escape slv2 - could be used by it to make

> a better general solution instead :)

You got the idea. :-D

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev