[LAD] [ann] CAPS 0.4.5

[Tim Goetze]

[Philipp Überbacher]

>Excerpts from Stefano D'Angelo's message of 2011-03-28 22:59:46 +0200:
>> 
>> This means, if you change the port signature and maintain the same
>> UniqueID, we would have incompatibilities in the LV2 world. If you
>> create a new plugin or don't touch ports, instead, everything's fine.
>> 
>> Stefano
>
>I'd say you'd even have incompatibilities in LADSPA world. Even fixes in
>LADSPA plugins would sometimes need a new ID (This was discussed a while
>ago regarding a LADSPA that has an unintuitive port order).

Lacking sufficient knowledge of all the LADSPA hosts out there, I'm 
unable to judge how many will cope with the addition of a port to an 
existing plugin and how many will not.

However, I'd expect any host on whose design reasonably deep thought 
has been expended to simply use the new plugin in place of the 
previous one, with the the new port set to its default value.  In this 
case the plugin will operate exactly the same way the old version did.

(For what it's worth, ladspa.h does not mandate that a plugins' port 
signature never changes.)

It is very unfortunate that such a change might break the way your 
bridge code works, Stefano, and I would like to apologise in advance.  
(If the addition of a 'version' symbol exported by caps.so is any 
help, I'll be happy to add that.)

Cheers, Tim