[LAD] [ANN] LV2 beta3

Thomas Vecchione seablaede at gmail.com
Wed May 9 16:44:22 UTC 2007

> This is intentional.  LV2 is not intended to include every single
> feature that everyone might want.  It is intended for it to
> be /possible/ to implement any feature someone might want (this is why
> LV2 actually exists in a useful state and, say, GMPI does not...)

While this makes perfect since in flexibility from a programmer 
perspective, I wonder how it will affect things from an end-user 
perspective, especially if LV2 becomes popular(Which many hope it would)...

The end user will have some plugins that are 'LV2' that will work in 
some 'LV2' hosts but not others.  How are they to know?  Will they have 
to have 'LV2 and supports these features' that they will have to check 
off every time to see if it should be working or not?

Or 'Profiles' that fit a certain set of features?

Don't get me wrong, I love how flexible LV2 is intended to be.  However 
without some baseline for it, there are some definite concerns when 
writing plugins in as far as compatibility for an end-user that may not 
know to check every last little additional function.

Perhaps LV2 should by default include extensions that encompass the 
points brought up here instead of dismissing them as capable of being 
done, as if they can be done in one host, not nesseccarily in all, then 
you have one giant mass of confusion in as far as what plugins can be 
sued here, there or whatever, and instead of a standard plugin format, 
we have a giant clusterf**k.

I apologize to anyone offended by the last statement in advance, but I 
could not come up with a better way to describe it.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list