[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Traverso-devel] Re: Traverso-Routing etc,
From: |
Peter Hoppe |
Subject: |
[Traverso-devel] Re: Traverso-Routing etc, |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:59:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) |
Sorry that this question hovered in the air for two days now...
I just very recently started to look into Traverso development, so I'm junior
junior. In that sense I can't really speak
very authoritatively. I certainly can't say whether signal/control routing to
CLAM should be added to the Traverso
project - that's for the long standing developers to decide.
However - concerning coding quality, it's /always/ recommendable to work
towards high quality code. 'Hackish' designs
may work and bring results quickly - but you suffer consequences later. Most
prominently, you'll find that with
increasing complexity your architecture suffers from hardening, i.e. it gets
more and more inflexible.
Concerning a bridge to CLAM - would it be worthwhile to look into the plugin
architecture already provided by Traverso?
Traverso has got support for LV2 plugins, and whilst I am not very familiar
with that technology it sounds like
something worthwhile to investigate. If that route would be a good one, you'd
only need to write an LV2 plugin for
Traverso which then would somehow interface with the Audio editor. But, as I
said, this is just a wild guess. I actually
had a little look into CLAM, and it seems to be a very flexible sound
processing system.
Hope this helps! Your projects sounds interesting!
P
--
Fame is probably the second most dangerous occupation after working in a coal
mine
- Moby
- [Traverso-devel] Re: Traverso-Routing etc,,
Peter Hoppe <=