[linux-audio-dev] LADSPA 2

[Steve Harris]

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 03:45:05PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 19:23 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:25:59AM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > But anyway, why can't it go in the code?  I want to keep the C part
> > > minimal as well, but this is a unique identifier, the sole thing that
> > > actually does belong in the code.  I need this to create an app/device
> > > like the above.  What's the better reason it's a bad idea?  Plugins have
> > > a unique string ID, and I need ports to as well.
> > 
> > Theres no advantage to it being in the code, it means allocating an array
> > of strings, which means repeating the same code in every plugin. Also, you
> > can't get the strings unless you load and link the plugin, which is one of
> > the things were trying to get away from.
> 
> The advantage is the mentioned use case which your suggestion destroys.
> The array can be static anyway, there's not really any "code" added.

I don't see how it affects the usecase. You /always/ need to read at least
some of the data somehwere to use the plugin.
 
> Are you proposing to put the port index numbers in the metadata as well?
> Otherwise you couldn't get at them without loading and linking the
> plugin.

Of course, it's ladspa:index if the numbers aren't there then theres
nothing to link the port data to the float *.
 
> So the plugin URI should exclusively go in the metadata file as well?
> Why is that in the code?

It has to be in the struct, otherwise you don't know what functions to
call to get a particular plugin.

- Steve