On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:28:39AM +1200, Jeff McClintock wrote:
> I think I good experiment is to imagine you have to write both an LV2 host
If the MIDI-binding code is in a shared library (and it probably should
be) then there's little difference between these two. Code is shared.
Per-instance data isn't, in the first case the host would allocate it
if it loads a plugin and in the second case the plugin would do it, but
again the total size would be the same.
> A very real scenario is you write this MIDI-binding support, ship 50
Again if the code is an a shared library that is the only thing that
will need to be updated.
> It's not a question of 'bloat' YES/NO. The code has to go *somewhere*, there
Yes, and the choice should IMHO be made based on *operational*
Does a MIDI controller control
1. a GUI element (e.g. a fader) which in turn controls a
2. does it control the parameter, updating the GUI as a
In case (1) the midi controller can use the mapping (e.g. linear
or logarithmic) of the GUI element, which may be a desirable
Also imagine that the plugin GUI and DSP code (and host) run on
separate machines. For example the host is some complex rendering
engine placed in a technical room while the plugin GUI runs on
your on-stage laptop. To which one would you want the MIDI controller
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
Linux-audio-dev mailing list