[Clam-devel] Re: TODOs

Han, Yushen yushen.han at gmail.com
Tue Jul 22 12:27:06 PDT 2008


Hi, Greg

Thanks for your opinion.
The headache in compiling is the motivation to keep them as a part of
the plugin.
I think our plugins will merge; the biggest difference between us is
that yours deals with those sound in which the notion of "note of a
pitch" does not apply explicitly. My score-maker will generate scores
from a real recording more carefully.

Your suggestion about the residual is right since I did hear the
attack of the notes after enable the residual.
I will keep your design of voice. Do you have any suggestion about the
the morphing between voices?

Best regards,
Han, Yushen

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Greg Kellum <greg.kellum at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Yushen,
>
>> e.g. The following hierarchy of classes are re-organized by me based
>> on Greg's code. All of them are plugin headers instead of system
>> files.
>>
>> SDIFDatabase.cxx
>> ->
>> SDIFFileReaderWithBuffer.cxx
>> ->
>> SDIFFileReaderWithLoop.cxx
>>
>> Do you think I should keep his structure or this design when I merge
>> our plugins?
>> I would like to hear Greg's comments too.
>
> I think it's probably better like you've done it.  It was a headache having
> those as system files, because that meant that anytime you made any changes
> to them you had to recompile and reinstall CLAM and then recompile the
> plugin.  And this adds 3 - 5 minutes to the build time.
>
> If you're plugin was going to be separate from mine, they would be better as
> system files, since two plugins would be using them.  But if there is only
> going to be one SMS plugin, then you might as well keep them in the plugin.
>
> Best,
> Greg
>




More information about the clam-devel mailing list