Re: [Om-synth] Exporting synths?

[Ross Clement]

On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 13:08 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
> It wouldn't be any different from the user perspective.  The Om engine
> itself is really not that complicated of a thing.  If you take out all
> the Event stuff (ie OSC control), it's _really_ not that complicated of
> a thing.
> 
> It would be a very cool thing to have a full blown modular inside apps
> (like Ardour) though - much better than just being able to create static
> plugins.
> 
> That said, there are advantages to actually creating plugins - namely
> performance.  If it were possible anyway: 

I agree that it would be a very cool thing to have a full modular synth
as a plugin to Ardour etc. However, I think there would also be an
audience for non-modular plugins as well. While I like the modular stuff
myself, I don't think anyone would claim that it's for everybody.

> Well, unfortunately there's no standard way of getting at the source
> code of a plugin.  Building a plugin from an Om patch given the source
> code of all the plugins used would be possible, but without that you
> don't really have anything to work with.

Lars mentioned (+/- delta) this as well. I'm not sure that it would be
necessary to access the source code for the plugin. I was thinking that
since the format of an object code library file (.so etc) is open and
not all *that* complicated, that it would be possible to read the
library files themselves, extract the used subroutines, and package them
up again into another library package containing the "new" plugin. 

I was thinking also that there might be some shortcuts using gcc, e.g.
it's possible to compile a static executable for a program, which
packages up library routines into a binary.

> I'm all for some kind of standard LADPSA plugin package organization
> (including a sane naming scheme and source access), but the chances of
> it happening are basically zero at this point.

Cheers,

Ross-c