[LAD] [ann] CAPS 0.4.5

[David Robillard]

On 10/04/11 06:21 PM, Tim Goetze wrote:
> [Jeff McClintock]
>
>    
>> What happens when you modify version-1 of your plugin and remove a port
>> (making Version2), then later re-add a new (unrelated) port with different
>> semantics? (Version 3)... Then load a project created with version 1.
>>
>> Does the host in THIS situation set the new port to it's default value, I
>> doubt it. More likely it 'restores' it to some invalid setting.
>>
>> Do you want a fragile, crash-prone, plugin ecosystem?, or a robust one?
>>      
> The plugins in CAPS clamp all control inputs to the valid range.
> Whatever the host sends, including inf and nan, there is no "invalid"
> setting.  Moreover, the plugins will not crash even if run without
> connecting their control ports at all.
>
> The above experiment, by the way, is exactly what I did, and it did
> not cause any abnormal behaviour: no crash, no segfault, no bus error,
> no assertion failure in any part of the executed code; no inf or nan,
> not even a single sample value of or in excess of 1f absolute in the
> audio output.
>
> I think your fear of a fragile and crash-prone plugin ecosystem is
> unfounded and exaggerated.
>
>    
>> I Agree with Paul on this one.
>>      
> I can very well see how a host author would want plugin port
> signatures to be stable, and I was never happy about invalidating this
> assumption.
>
> However, the evolved plugin doesn't even break ardour or its session
> files, so the pragmatic thing is to just get on with it and not waste
> as much breath on a triviality like this as we do now.
>    
No, the pragmatic thing to do is not deliberately break your plugin when 
several knowledgeable people have pointed out that doing so can cause 
countless problems.

One test with one version of one host certainly does not outweigh that.. 
particularly when one of said knowledgeable people is the primary author 
of that host!

-dr