Re: [non-daw] lv2

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.tuxfamily.org/non-daw Archives ]


Using lv2 you only take the extension you want to support, you are not
forced to support everything.

Anyway, i also think standalones lv2 are a better solution, at least for synths

I was just telling i was thinking this wasn't a "decision against lv2" afaik

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Alex Stone <alexstone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Julien 'Lta' BALLET wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:36 PM,  <male@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010, plutek-infinity wrote:
>>>>
>>>> greetings, again!
>>>>
>>>> i'm curious about the lack of lv2 support in non daw -- is this a
>>>> decision *against* lv2, or simply a "not done yet" thing?
>>>>
>>>> cheers!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> .pltk.
>>>
>>> I have no interest in implementing support for LV2 at the
>>> current time. There is simply nothing compelling about LV2
>>> over LADSPA. I do, however, plan to support DSSI.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Feb 23 2010,
>>> John Moore Liles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is still dssi maintained ?
>> lv2 is really a nice standard, but it's currently under exploited. The lv2
>> design is quite interesting imho and it's philosophy isn't that far from the
>> non-things one
>>
> I'm not sure about that. LV2 is shaping up, but there's too many specifics
> required re. versions. John would have to recode every time a new version
> came out.
>
> I might be alone here, but given the modular nature of jack, i would think
> dedicated lv2 hosts would be a better option, and we simply patch into them.
> Calf have done this successfully, and i can't see a compelling reason to add
> that functionality into non apps.
>
> Alex.
>
>
>



-- 
BALLET Julien
Head of LabFree,  Free software laboratory of Epitech
Phone : 01 53 14 59 32 || 06 17 32 86 93.
Mail : <j.ballet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- <elthariel@xxxxxxxxx>
Web : http://www.labfree.org/



Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/