[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/non-daw Archives
- To: non-daw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [non-daw] lv2
- From: "Julien 'Lta' BALLET" <elthariel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:10:48 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GbDhxdlPp/u+IrRzlToU/pVOr0I+v3aY3e7QX5LHa4o=; b=iJFZ+i/PeLLCuCkOxI8VjjYfbYkdZi9AzouD9Gc14gH7SoGmIP3X34+itzh6/t0mdT l9EQQVtwp4xRzAHMSdjJDaUGx+8Fa0AyrmGZopBKmiLEJQ1W1Geqr/QQxIL4R2zR0H08 nUUuwJH89WaJg83YygSE+WL3/jbYm4CuA8qYk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QrKJkpvh3uuGJZ0Z++tXz9LPnLa7GUeuTJ/bwpYELUP4yDfdPLZcSgpClhYu7RywkK fftSXG2iJ2UAkswhA1qmoVo64g/6CLHWNO54Im0nbWUOTN+jF1jZst4fuh6GWR5IOPQH WS//Q3M1PqPQxGKRrIpWOnL66z/rgjoA1N6HU=
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?
>>> 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
>> 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.
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/