linuxaudio.org

>> Hello,

quoted text
>>

>> I have been coding the porting of the AMS internal modules to LV2

>> plugins using the Lv2-C++-Tools.

>>

>> The more I'm progressing, the more I am wondering if there are any

>> limitations involved in using this library, especially these days

>> where a lot of new features are being added to the Lv2 Extensions.

>

> Maybe this isn't really a technical argument, but I really don't like

> these libraries as they are because the pkg-config names are really

> generic and impossible to find, and make them seem like some kind of

> official "LV2 plugin library" or something.

>

> They really need a proper, somewhat unique, name.

>

>> For example, I am coding a plugin that output the position of the

>> mouse cursor as two control ports (handy to develop a kind of theremin

>> synth).

>> Getting the cursor position from the X Library is an expensive

>> operation, and the new Worker Extension seems perfect for the job, but

>> I can't figure out if somehow it is compatible or not with the

>> Lv2-C++-Tools.

>

> Whoah now!  The worker extension is a plugin-side thing, not UI, and

> there is an EXTREMELY small chance that you actually want to be doing

> multi-threaded things in your UI code.  Trust me.

Although it involves the mouse, what I'm trying to achieve is not

exactly UI related.

The plugin I have has two output called X and Y.
When the mouse is at the bottom left corner of the screen, X and Y are

equal to 0.

When it's at the top right corner, X and Y are equal to 1.
The design I had in mind was to have a thread on the side that would

query the mouse position every 25ms, especially to avoid having it in

the method processing the sound itself (this create a lot of XRuns

when I do that).
(when it's used with a touchpad, it can be used a lot like the Korg

Kaossilator, by controlling the cutoff point of a filter for example)
@Fons: I phrased it wrong the first time :) by expensive, I meant that

my poor design was creating a lot of xruns :)
>> The most obvious pros of using Lv2-C++-Tools is its simplicity.

quoted text
>> Porting an AMS module takes only 20 to 30 minutes with it, while doing

>> it without the help of the library takes much more time and is way

>> more tedious.

>> (I am much more confortable coding in C++ than C, but the question

>> deserves to be asked, am I doing something wrong here that I find it

>> way more difficult to code without the help of Lv2-C++-Tools?)

>

> Personally I think a good C++ wrapper header(s) would be a good thing to

> have, but I don't really get the point of the rest of it.

>

> Also not sure the kinda crazy template hackery is worth it...

The lv2peg tool makes the development a lot faster.

quoted text
>From my own experience, there is duplication of work by setting up the

input/output/controls in the ttl files, then having to set them up

again in the code of the plugin itself.

lv2peg creates the headers automatically.

But that's my 2 cents!
(I became a software developer because I'm extremely lazy, and I like

computers to do the monkey work for me!)
> Cheers,

quoted text
>

> -dr

>

Aurélien

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

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