[LAD] "enhanced event port" LV2 extension proposal

[Krzysztof Foltman]

Dave Robillard wrote:
> We will want that eventually, but it's officially Hard(TM) :)
>   
No doubt it is. But it's the result of your own choice, so better don't 
complain too much ;)
> Dynamic URI<->int mapping is probably a good thing.  Raises issues
> though - maybe an acceptable compromise is that the existing ones never
> change, but ones can be added?
Look at the part you've just quoted (or see below)

> as long as the only URIs that may appear in updates are new URIs (there are
> no reassignments or deletions).


No reassignments or deletions. Just add, no change/remove.

But, actually, I can see some purpose for deletion - when a host stops 
supporting some event type coming out of a plugin. Which tells me we've 
concentrated too much on host-to-plugin direction, and not enough on 
plugin-to-host or plugin-to-plugin (basically: communicating what event 
types are actually *wanted* on an event output port!)

But, worst case is that host would have to ignore the event types that 
are not valid anymore. It would be inefficient for the plugins, sure. 
But somehow, I don't see anyone will care. Not with current temperatures 
in hell.

Krzysztof