d at drobilla.net
Fri Feb 8 17:41:22 PST 2013
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 13:19 -0200, Luis Henrique Fagundes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:24 AM, David Robillard <d at drobilla.net>
> Fair enough. If all you really care about is LADSPA
> functionality it probably doesn't matter much.
> I think you hit the point here, I realize now I'm really thinking old
> LADSPA way. In fact our first implementation was to support LADSPA,
> and migrating to LV2 was hard. So, maybe what I'm trying to get here
> is the certainty of things I used to have in LADSPA :-). This is just
> a reflection, I don't know if this is a good or bad thing.
When it comes to port types there aren't actually that many in practice,
but other stuff, like properties used to better describe plugins, are
pretty important for generating a half decent UI and/or automatically
controlling plugins decently.
> Yes, right now this suits our needs a lot, and as a general LV2 Python
> API is not good yet, although this code being around might help other
> people. Right now we're on a tight schedule for our product and
> releasing the whole software under GPL is in our near roadmap, so this
> discussion will make more sense for us soon, and then we can think in
> a more general tool.
Fair enough. If you're just trying to get a particular app out on a
schedule... well, get it out :) Probably not a good use of time to
discuss this which is essentially an internal API at this point.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Devel