[LAD] [ANN] LV2 beta3

Dave Robillard drobilla at connect.carleton.ca
Wed May 9 17:04:15 UTC 2007

On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 12:44 -0400, 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?

>From an end user perspective, hosts that can not run a given plugin
should choose to simply not display it at all.  The burden to check (or
even know directly about) host features is certainly not on the end user
in any case.

As I pointed out, a lot of thought has been put into this.  The
information is always there to know if, and why, a plugin is or is not
usable.  So graceful failure from an end user perspective (or,
preferably, just hiding the plugin entirely and avoiding confusion and
clitter) is possible.

Think of it as extra plugins that would not exist /at all/ if the spec
wasn't extensible in this way.  Nothing lost, right?


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list