[LAD] [ANN] LV2 beta3

Steve Harris steve at plugin.org.uk
Wed May 9 16:53:00 UTC 2007

On 9 May 2007, at 17:44, Thomas Vecchione wrote:

>> 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?

I expect the majority of plugins will only use the core spec. The  
hosts can tell which plugins they don't have support for, and why so  
they could do something intelligent in the UI (greying out and  
tooltips or whatever).

There's also a lot of support to allow plugins to gracefully degrade,  
or provide alternative implementations when a feature that they'd  
like is not present.

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

Sure, why not? It's just a social contract.

> 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.

They wont have to. The point that they might not understand why for  
eg. Ardour can't load one of Nedko's plugins is reasonable though.

> 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.

That's a possibility for the future, I would expect any LV2 1.1 to be  
the core spec + a set  of commonly used extensions.

Discussing spec issues in an open forum like this though is a futile  
effort, and it's simply not true that you can't get a lot done with  
the core spec. LV2 is more capable than LADSPA, and there are some  
hundred LADSPA plugins, which work to some degree :)

- Steve

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list