2017-11-11 10:23 GMT+01:00 Tom M. <tom.m...@googlemail.com>: > > I would like to expose some (or most) of the public functions in > src/bindings/fluid_ladspa.h as a public API. > > Ok. And what would be its main purpose? Enable the user to manipulate > synth->ladspa_fx or create custom ladspa_fx units to manually render audio > by calling fluid_ladspa_run() ? >
Good question! So the question really is if the API should expose the ladspa_fx object at all, or if all LADSPA API functions take a synth object instead. My personal aim is to be able to manipulate the synth->ladspa_fx, so the latter option would be best. But it could be useful to be able to create additional ladspa_fx instances... I'm undecided. What do you think? > > I guess we need to mock those functions if LADSPA isn't available to > keep the ABI stable? > > Correct, by returning NULL or FLUID_FAILED. However #ifdef LADSPA should > be placed inside fluid_ladspa.c, I want to keep that as opaque as possible. > Hm... wouldn't fluid_ladspa.h be a better place for the stub declarations? Cheers, Marcus
_______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
