Sorry, the plugin (and DAW and audio technology worlds) simply haven't worked that way in a long time, if ever.
We never even managed to agree on a way to share a tempo map in JACK ... you think it is somehow easier to agree on how to share "this is what i think the current spectral energy of my track looks like?"On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Jeremy Carter <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul, a bit of optimism can go a long way. We could make stuff like this, and the ones who don't want to agree on the standard can be left behind.On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:______________________________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@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
