[linux-audio-dev] LADSPA 2 decision points

[Steve Harris]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 12:34:04PM -0700, thockin at hockin.org wrote:
> > nonono :)  I think metadata outside the plugin is without a doubt the
> > right way to go.  I meant I'm just not a huge fan of the particular
> > syntax of this Turtle stuff (as opposed to normal well-formed XML).
> > Mostly because it means we need special tools and who knows what
> > libraries to deal with it.
> 
> That's fine.  I still don't get the point of seperating the two.

We've done this disccusion to death, but anyway... if you have the
constant data inside the plugin binary then:

1) you have to load and link the binary to find anything about it
2) you have to have lots of tedious, but quite complex code everytime you
   provide data (look how much pointless boilerplate code there is in a
   ladspa .c just to make the port structures)
3) you risk binary incompatibility everytime you add to the static data
   (think of the defaults problem in LADSPA 1)
4) you have a wierd licence situation around reusing the data
5) I18N is a pain
6) extensions have to change the binary, or be external anyway
and so on.

- Steve