On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:50 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:28:37 -0400
Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> let me offer you a hint.
Good !
> what the plugins need to share are not messages but computer
> (analysis) data.
So much for the hint.
> normally (though not universally), when entities run inside a single
> process and need to share information, they do so by sharing access to
> memory.
This is writing to say nothing.
I'm not saying nothing. I'm trying to tell you that if you want a set of plugins that behave as an integrated whole, sharing data about the tracks they are processing and potentially using data from other tracks to adjust their own behaviour, then you need them to share *memory*, not exchange messages.
There's effectively no chance that different plugin manufacturers will ever agree to a single standard for such a thing, so there's unlikely to be any "protocol" or "specification" for this. It is something that a single plugin company could do on their own, to notable effect.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
