[linux-audio-dev] LADSPA extension - Formal proposal.

[Jan Weil]

On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 11:25, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:14:02AM +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> 
> > Well, since these are _hints_ I'd suggest to just ignore
> > LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED in this case. Otherwise a simpler minded host
> > (applyplugin) might let you use this plugin without problems while your
> > sophisticated pro app refuses to touch it. 
> > 
> > Or is this what you'd expect?
> 
> I have no problem with a host rejecting a plugin that violates the
> interface spec. I expect them to this, actually.

Please try to look at it from a user's POV. Imagine the following post
to ardour-users:

Hi list,
I've been using my favourite LADSPA plugin AudioTwingTwang in Sweep
0.8.2 for a long time. I have to admit it's UI looks a little odd but I
really love this effect.
Now I'm trying to record some of my music which no longer fits into my
computer's RAM so I was considering Ardour but - alas - Ardour's LADSPA
support is not as good as I had expected. Whenever I try to load
AudioTwingTwang Ardour says something about a 'violated interface spec'.
So I'm sorry to say that but I'm very disappointed. I'll go back to
Sweep for now.
Bye,
X

Why should Mr./Mrs. X be bothered with LADSPA's awkward evolution on
LAD?
Reminds me of ESR's problems while configuring CUPS.

Not every plugin coder uses demolition just take a look at
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0158.html

Jan