[LAD] VeSTige headers

[victor]

yes, on closer looks this header seems to be the equivalent of the
host interface SDK header, not the ones for creating plugins.
The question is whether there is the equivalent VeSTige C++
headers for plugins. Of course the base class implementation is
also good to have (but it might possible to reimplement it alright).

My reasons for looking at this is that I would have liked to build
a  VST plugin example from the ground up without having to
depend on the SDK, with LGPL or similar license. It's an
educational thing.

Victor

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Cannam" <cannam at all-day-breakfast.com>
To: "victor" <Victor.Lazzarini at nuim.ie>
Cc: "Paul Davis" <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>; "Linux Audio Developers" 
<linux-audio-dev at lists.linuxaudio.org>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [LAD] VeSTige headers


> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:53 PM, victor<Victor.Lazzarini at nuim.ie> wrote:
>> Does anyone know whether it is possible to write fully-compatible
>> VST plugins with this header? It does seem to have a lot less than
>> the VST SDK headers on first looks. Or is this just meant for
>> writing hosts?
>
> I'm not completely confident about this, but I think that effectively
> it's only good for hosts.
>
> The header contains everything that a "normal" host in "normal" use
> will use to communicate with a plugin, so you can certainly use it to
> write a plugin that would work in this situation.  But it isn't
> complete; a host could invoke things not specified in this header, and
> your plugin won't respond correctly to them if your only reference is
> this header (as it presumably will be if you aren't to trangress
> against the VST licence).  So your plugin might work in other hosts,
> but I don't see how you could be sure of that.
>
> On a practical level, of course, most existing plugins derive from the
> C++ classes provided in the SDK, which have no equivalent here.  So
> you'd have to do more work.
>
>
> Chris