[LV2] LV2-C++-Tools

David Robillard d at drobilla.net
Sat Mar 24 08:52:21 PDT 2012

On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 14:34 +0000, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
> Hello,
> 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.

> The most obvious pros of using Lv2-C++-Tools is its simplicity.
> 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...



More information about the Devel mailing list