[linux-audio-dev] LADSPA 2

[Dave Robillard]

On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:23 +0200, Leonard "paniq" Ritter wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:46 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > Plugins must be able to refuse hosts and hosts must be able to refuse
> > plugins.  It's the only way to allow extensions.  I _guarantee_ plugins
> > will exist that some hosts just don't want (they already do with
> > LADSPA1), and some plugins will exists that require features hosts are
> > not required to provide.  This is a Good Thing.
> 
> maybe in a Perfect World. in practice, we are going to face irritations
> when plugins demand weird non-unified URIs to be passed in order to run
> at all. from what i see, no new URIs can be invented without requiring
> immediate support in all available hosts

Where did you get this crazy idea?  The whole point is that different
hosts can provide different features.

>  and plugins that initially
> only work for one host are not that cool. ergo, the "feature" of
> blocking instantiation for a host not passing a required URI will be
> rarely used, for the simple reason that it might not work with all
> hosts. thus, do not allow it by spec.

You want to impose plugins work on the lowest common denominator of
hosts.  Basically this amounts to mandating that certain plugins simply
can not exist.  Why would you want to do that?

> from my point of view, host features should be seen as "hints", which
> are not required, but of a suggestive nature.

Plugins are free to interpret them as such and not /require/ the
feature.  It's totally up to the plugin.

> my argumentation is chaotic. decipher the obvious!
> 
> > 
> > While I am with you on the name thing, you don't understand.  LADSPA2
> > will be completely installable in parallel with LADSPA1.  Obviously it
> > will not "replace" LADSPA1 on a system and immediately break all the
> > installed plugins!
> 
> i hope this is taken care of! the new header suggests replacement, not
> complementation.

The fact that you even considered that someone would really do this is
frightening.  Not an issue ;)

> > This, like most everything else, is in the data file.  You really need
> > to read more than the header before commenting further ;)
> 
> the trusty header should be all documentation required... there was also
> no reference to additional documents in it. how about adding it? :o)

If you think the header should be all the documentation required, then
you completely Don't Get It on a fundamental level.  Read the example
plugin - all of it.


-DR-