[LAD] "enhanced event port" LV2 extension proposal

[Dave Robillard]

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 23:02 +0100, Lars Luthman wrote:
> So if everyone agrees that the header should be
> 
> {
>   uint32_t timestamp_int;
>   uint32_t timestamp_frc;
>   uint16_t size;
>   uint16_t type;
> }
> 
> with data padded to 4+N*16 bytes, can't we just say that the code part
> is done? Whether the different events types are implemented as aligned
> platform-dependent structs or raw packed bytes or something else doesn't
> matter at all to the event transport extension and it doesn't make any
> sense to argue about it until we actually have a fixed way of sending
> events.

Agreed (enough digression and nitpicking!).  What's in the payload
doesn't matter (and everything is nicely aligned anyway).

Does everyone like this event header?

-DR-