Stock JSFXes -> ReaPack database

[mschnell]

It would be very helpful (not only) for newbies if the stock plugins were findable and documented in the ReaPack database.

-Michael

[pcartwright]

Originally Posted by mschnell

It would be very helpful (not only) for newbies if the stock plugins were findable and documented in the ReaPack database.

-Michael

How so?

[mschnell]

Maybe we need some support by CFillion to allow for file-less database entries, and I suppose we should use a dedicated repository on a server managed by Cockos to upload the description-only files to.

Moreover, Cockos should include ReaPack in the standard distribution.

Even moreover, there should be a way to see the database "about" information when pressing F1 (or right-click) on a jsfx in the FX browser or instantiated in an FX-chain, in a perfectly newbie friendly way without needing to install anything.

Then we should create a community of "about" text writers. Of course I will very happily do a decent part of those texts, but we need at least ten contributors to get the work done in a decent time frame.

-Michael

[xpoes]

Moreover, Cockos should include ReaPack in the standard distribution.

or add this as an installation option..

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by xpoes

or add this as an installation option..

Yep. Activated by default to make live easy for newbies.

-Michael

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

imagine this from Cockos' perspective, for a moment ...

Extensibility is the one of the main positive characteristic of Reaper's and obviously really high on the agenda of the Cockos team from the beginning of the creation of this software. Moreover they are well aware of the power community driven effort have to help a good product to be successful. And making the existing and "supported" (and installed with the product out of the box) extensions easier to find and to understand would be a great usage plus (especially for newbies, who are reluctant to "install" anything).

That is why I suppose Cockos might be inclined to support this endeavor and find a way to do so.

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

Stock JSFX don't belong in the ReaPack database since they are considered to be officially supported (at least as far as I can tell).

Too busy with more important work on Reaper, very obviously the Cockos team is not able to improve the findabily and documentation of the great quantity of stock JSFX plugins. I really don't see why anybody (including Cockos) should oppose against having a repository including descriptions of these in the ReaPack database by default. If he really does not like it, he can easily disable that repository to go back to the current state.

There are lots of questions in these forums that can be answered by "use this stock plugin" or by "that stock plugin works in that way". So a decent searcheable documentation of the stock plugins would reduce the support effort done here and unburdon the regular contributors including you and myself.


-Michael (would start to do such documentation today, but as pointed out there are some prerequisites to allow any success of this)

[mschnell]

While SWS is a huge extension with hundreds of built-in features doing great stuff but just exactly what is implemented within itself, the ReaPack extension is a rather straightforward and manageable thing, that empowers the use of a huge amount of (unsupported by Cockos but definitively very advantageous and often desperately requested) feature extensions in several unsupported by Cockos repositories.

While AFAIK, there are not many ReaPack supportable non-JSFX extensions that come with Reaper out of the box, those types are additionally supported by ReaPack: ReaScripts, WebInterfaces, Automation Items, Language Packs, Midi Note Names, Project Templates, Themes, Track Templates, "Other packages".

With many of these scopes, there is quite a lot of stuff out there making Reaper much more usable and attractive without needing additional support by the Cocos team, once all this is more decently findable and documented.

Thanks a lot for offering help, once we get this effort running ....

Admittedly, for the "stock plugin documentation" project to be successful, Cockos would not only need to make sure that ReaPack is visible for newbies directly after installing Reaper, but they also need to maintain a "supported by Cockos" repository for these texts (and maybe for other stuff later in time: they even could decide not to distribute the JSFX files with the Reaper distruibuion at all) on their server, which might be more effort than managing the ReaPack extension (which by the way is not a script but a a Reaper Extension (dll) ) usage itself.

-Michael

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

including people complaining about problems with scripts/plugins that "should work properly in Reaper" "because they're part of ReaPack and Cockos says it should work" whether it's "officially supported" or not).

That is why a dedicated" "supported by Cocos" repository is needed to get started.

Nobody calls Microsoft because some program does not work as expected in Windows even though it can be found and is documented via the Microsoft Edge functionality, which is part of the Windows and hence everything visible there "obviously" needs to be supported by Microsoft.

If you now say that a DAW is not an OS: there is a huge similarity in the usage terms of an OS and Reaper: Many (if not most) users of a Windows distribution don't ever install anything but just use what software comes with their hardware (similar to many DAW users). More advanced/demanding users will want to install additional stuff (e.g. via Windows-Edge ore Reaper-ReaPack).

-Michael

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

including people complaining about problems with scripts/plugins that "should work properly in Reaper" "because they're part of ReaPack and Cockos says it should work" whether it's "officially supported" or not).

That is why a dedicated" "supported by Cocos" repository is needed to get started.

Nobody calls Microsoft because some program does not work in Windows even though it can be found and is documented via the Microsoft Edge functionality, which is part of the Windows and hence everything visible there needs to be supported by Microsoft.

Same holds for MacOS, iOS, Android or Linux and their appropriate extensions (called 3rd party "Programs" or "Apps". In fact even with "OS"es, you nowadays have unsupported extensions the "Store" or "Play" functionalities, that even more resemble ReaPack.

-Michael

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

SWS has never been an official part of Reaper, yet people have been complaining for years that it should be officially supported/developed by Cockos. People still say that.

Yep they do request the SWS features to be part of Reaper (a request that I definitively and explicitly do not support, while I would like to see SWS split into multiple parts with dedicated scope and these accessible via ReaPack). This is not "criticism about such unsupported scripts/plugins not working decently" (i.e. bugfixing this stuff) but request for tighter integration. Regarding potential requests for bug-fixing-support, the state of SWS is exactly like the current state of the huge amount of available 3rd party scrips and even any 3rd party VSTs.

But I did not hear any complains about Cocos being liable for SWS not functioning as expected.

Who said Cocos should remove anything from Reaper ? This is all about finding as well supported as unsupported (often hidden to newbies) possibilities Reaper might offer. And the original Request is just about helping the community to provide documentation (mind: the wonderful Reaper-Guide also is not provided by Cockos themselves, and hence might trigger unduly liability assumptions). Of course it's viable to discuss the implication, though.

-Michael

[mschnell]

I do listen, but can't make sense of some aspects of what I hear.

-Michael

[citizenkeith]

Originally Posted by mschnell

It would be very helpful (not only) for newbies if the stock plugins were findable and documented in the ReaPack database.

-Michael

Another option would for the stock plugin authors to include a description in the code, like many already do. The problem is that newbies may not know to hit the "Edit" button to see the description. Maybe Cockos can add a "Description" button that just shows code comments? (See attachment)

I guess I just don't understand why it would be wise to add stock plugins to a ReaPack repository when the plugins are already included.

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by citizenkeith

... the stock plugin authors...

That would be the Cockos developers.

They (obviously ) are busy with improving the Reaper engine !

Of course the existing stock plugins code is not supposed to be in ReaPack, but the just de description "about" part. AFAIK ReaPack already is able to handle this: a database entry consisting of a file (here the community maintained description) plus an (empty) file that is not transferred (the dummy for the stock plugin code maintained by Cockos).

-Michael

[cfillion]

Originally Posted by mschnell

Of course the existing stock plugins code is not supposed to be in ReaPack, but the just de description "about" part. AFAIK ReaPack already is able to handle this: a database entry consisting of a file (here the community maintained description) plus an (empty) file that is not transferred (the dummy for the stock plugin code maintained by Cockos).

Packages must contain at least one installable file. The only way to add the stock JSFX to a ReaPack repository would be to duplicate them.

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by cfillion

Packages must contain at least one installable file. The only way to add the stock JSFX to a ReaPack repository would be to duplicate them.

This of course is not a good idea at all. (Seemingly I was wrong about a discussion we had some time ago.) Hence, if we really start to do a community based documentation effort for the sock JSFXes, we would need an update to ReaPack, allowing for such a "dummy installation".

But before putting more effort into this, to me a prerequisite would be a tighter integration of ReaPack in Reaper: have it installed by default in a new installation, as the top in the "extension" menu, and allow for easily/seamlessly showing the "about" markdown window for already installed JSFXes in the plugin browser and for already instanciated JSFXes in the FX chain window. Otherwise doing such documentation that nobody will easily see would be a frustrating job .

-Michael