[LAD] State of Plugin API's

David Robillard dave at drobilla.net
Sun Nov 1 15:18:58 UTC 2009

On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 09:44 +1100, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> On 11/01/2009 08:11 AM, David Robillard wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 15:32 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> >    
> >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Robillard<dave at drobilla.net>  wrote:
> >> If i am wrting a plugin, and the current LV2 spec + existing
> >> extensions do not provide some functionality that I would like to use,
> >> then i can create a new extension. excellent.
> >>      
> > Fine and good.  Except that's not what's usually said, and that's not
> > what was initially said here.  LV2 is, apparently, a "catastrophic
> > failure".  When it's not that, it's usually FUD or misinformation about
> > the extension idea itself.  Excuses and whining, not arguments and
> > solutions.  I agree there is a difference, and more of the latter would
> > be nice.
> >
> >    
> To be fair it was in the context of adoption not as an overall sweeping 
> statement about the entire LV2 system which everyone agrees is a very 
> powerful and flexible model for plugin development and IMO deserves 
> greater recognition as best of breed in open source thinking and wider 
> adoption from the worldwide community of plugin developers.

Fair enough :)

> > There is nothing magical about API defined in an extension as opposed to
> > "LV2".  If LV2 was a monolithic specification - well, it wouldn't
> > actually exist in any finished or usable state at all, but let's make
> > that huge leap and pretend it is - then this same situation would exist.
> > Feature foo needs to be implemented by a host regardless.  The
> > difference is, with a monolithic specification feature foo not being
> > implemented by the host means that host doesn't support anything LV2, at
> > all, whatsoever, end of story.  This is clearly inferior.

> So, maybe it would be a good use of time to resolve this inadequacy as a 
> priority before moving onto other items?

?  The inadequacy is with a hypothetical monolithic alternative to LV2,
not with LV2.  If LV2 attempted to go this way, there would be /zero/


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list