You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We should support adding resources to a patch, such as samples and wavetables.
The easiest way to achieve this will be to simply add support for '.wav' source files, and make sure they are not visualised as text.
Instead there should be a 'Store' button that sends and saves the resource to a connected OWL.
(with confirmation: This will overwrite any existing resource with the name XYZ.wav)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
And/or allow the patch author to mark an uploaded file as a resource.
Meanwhile .wav feels like a useful, safe (are there many wav viruses out there?) step forward which doesn't require storing more metadata. Maybe adding .dat is also safe - and useful?
Marking a file as resource and supporting a specific extension for non-WAV resources achieve the same thing, I don't think we need both. I've suggested choosing a generic extension simply because it seems like it would take less work.
For .dat files we will only store data as is (no metadata to parse, can't preview them, etc), so it certainly can't be less safe than storing WAVs
We should support adding resources to a patch, such as samples and wavetables.
The easiest way to achieve this will be to simply add support for '.wav' source files, and make sure they are not visualised as text.
Instead there should be a 'Store' button that sends and saves the resource to a connected OWL.
(with confirmation: This will overwrite any existing resource with the name XYZ.wav)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: