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

jaromil jaromil at dyne.org
Fri May 14 19:50:08 UTC 2004

Hash: SHA1


On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 08:17:30PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:45:58 +0100, Mike Rawes wrote:
> > > Will it be possible for the same plugin to implement both v1 and
> > > v2?
> > > 
> > > (I would have thought that was probably a necessity, but then I
> > > don't write plugins.)
> > 
> > Ooh. That's a good point...
> > 
> > I've written a few plugins, and the thought of maintaining two versions of
> > otherwise identical plugins doesn't appeal. It is possible to combine two
> > versions in the source, and determine which version to build at compile time. 
> My vague plan was to stop supporting v1 directly and to provide a v1
> meta plugin wrapper that presents my v2 plugins via a v1 interface.
> The alternaive is that I stop supporting v1 alltogether. The old versions
> will still be avialable ofcourse.

gosh, i'm just writing a library for video plugins, inspired to LADSPA

"inspired" means that it is about a simple header, which doesn't
requires a library. see

we are allready quite some people focusing on it, from different
emerging video applications as FreeJ, VeeJay, PD/PDP, LiVES

what do you say guys, on the long term it's really bad to have this
header-oriented spec? or you're doing the change just now that everybody
joined the train, wouldn't have been a good choice since the beginning? ;>

i'm not provoking, i'm just trying to learn :) 

from what i could really understand from this thread. the header/lib
dependency is the main thing which differentiates the LADSPA v1 from v2,
seen from an architectural point of view.

would have been a good choice since the beginning, to have it as a lib?

thanks & respect,

- -- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Cryptographically signed mail, see http://gnupg.org


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list