linuxsampler-devel

[Linuxsampler-devel] dependency to boost library?

[Christian S. <chr...@ep...>]

Hi!

I'm currently thinking about adding a dependency in LS to the boost library:

	http://www.boost.org

It has many convenient, portable classes and templates and part of it will 
make it into the upcoming C++ standard one day.

One thing I could really need at the moment is this:

	http://www.boost.org/boost/optional.hpp

because the classes I designed for the driver configuration issue have 
optional return values, means a method might return a value but doesnt have 
to (e.g. keywords DEPENDS, RANGE_MIN, RANGE_MAX etc. from the new LSCP 
draft), see http://www.boost.org/libs/optional/doc/optional.html for more 
about this topic.

So the question now is do you think its worth to add this dependency or should 
I just rewrite / copy the relevant part of "this optional" template for our 
purpose? I mean it might be overkill to add this lib only for the small 
amount I need (about 30 lines) but maybe we need something else from this lib 
one day?

CU
Christian

Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] dependency to boost library?

[Mark K. <mk...@co...>]

Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I'm currently thinking about adding a dependency in LS to the boost library:
> 
> 	http://www.boost.org
> 
> It has many convenient, portable classes and templates and part of it will 
> make it into the upcoming C++ standard one day.
> 
> One thing I could really need at the moment is this:
> 
> 	http://www.boost.org/boost/optional.hpp
> 
> because the classes I designed for the driver configuration issue have 
> optional return values, means a method might return a value but doesnt have 
> to (e.g. keywords DEPENDS, RANGE_MIN, RANGE_MAX etc. from the new LSCP 
> draft), see http://www.boost.org/libs/optional/doc/optional.html for more 
> about this topic.
> 
> So the question now is do you think its worth to add this dependency or should 
> I just rewrite / copy the relevant part of "this optional" template for our 
> purpose? I mean it might be overkill to add this lib only for the small 
> amount I need (about 30 lines) but maybe we need something else from this lib 
> one day?
> 
> CU
> Christian
> 

Well, I just looked at boost from a user's perspective. It approaches 
7MB of code. I don't know how often that library changes, but I don't 
like the idea of having to build it very often to keep up to date with 
your work.

Maybe you can copy the 30+ lines for now, but plan on adding the 
dependency later when LS is more stable and closer to some sort of real 
usable release?

Thanks for taking input.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] dependency to boost library?

[<be...@ga...>]

Hi,
I agree with Mark,
copy the 30 lines, even if's 100 or 200.
The less dependencies we have the easier it's to maintain and
port LS to new platforms.

I assume this stuff does not get used in the real time thread right ?

cheers,
Benno
http://www.linuxsampler.org


Scrive Christian Schoenebeck <chr...@ep...>:

> Hi!
> 
> I'm currently thinking about adding a dependency in LS to the boost library:
> 
> 	

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.gardena.net

Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] dependency to boost library?

[Christian S. <chr...@ep...>]

Es geschah am Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2004 23:26 als be...@ga... schrieb:
> Hi,
> I agree with Mark,
> copy the 30 lines, even if's 100 or 200.

Already done.

> The less dependencies we have the easier it's to maintain and
> port LS to new platforms.
>
> I assume this stuff does not get used in the real time thread right ?

No, I just use it for device configuration.

CU
Christian

Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] dependency to boost library?

[Mark K. <mk...@co...>]

Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> Es geschah am Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2004 23:26 als be...@ga... schrieb:
> 
>>Hi,
>>I agree with Mark,
>>copy the 30 lines, even if's 100 or 200.
> 
> 
> Already done.
> 
Thanks.

[Linuxsampler-devel] new version of lscp spec

[Vladimir S. <ha...@so...>]

Hi Everybody,

Linuxsampler mafia has been secretly discussing future of LSCP protocol 
this weekend :)

I tried to capture that discussion (as well as my own bias :) in a new 
verion (08) of the spec.
I've just uploaded it to the website.
Mafia, you know who you are :) let me know if i missed/misinterpreted 
something, or just plain "misused trust" . . . hopefully i'll have a 
chance to fix it in this life :)

Everybody else please comment on it as well.

Changes:
Events. Subscribe/notify, etc.
LIST instead of GET AVAILABLE_ for channels, audio outputs and midi inputs.
Some other changes and rewording of 3.1 and 3.2.
removed chapter 7 (too lazy?) excuse: only requests were SPEC'd in this 
format. events are now more like warnings . . . they are not specified 
in this format. Do they need to be?

Regards,
Vladimir.