[LAD] [ann] CAPS 0.4.5

Olivier Guilyardi list at samalyse.com
Tue Mar 29 17:17:09 UTC 2011

On 03/28/2011 11:27 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> Excerpts from Stefano D'Angelo's message of 2011-03-28 22:59:46 +0200:
>> 2011/3/28 Tim Goetze <tim at quitte.de>:
>>>>> I'm planning to add a mode switch (low- or bandpass) to the AutoWah
>>>>> instead of making a separate new plugin, or would that be a stupid
>>>>> idea?
>>>> For compatibility with LV2, it's better if you create a new plugin for that...
>>> I don't see how compatibility with LV2 is a concern here?
>> Heh... long story short: LV2 uses URIs, LADSPA uses UniqueIDs (not
>> necessarily but...), two LV2 plugins with same URI are required to
>> have the same "port signature" (i.e., ports) and I wrote a LADSPA to
>> LV2 bridge where the URIs of the bridged plugins are in the form
>> urn:ladspa:xxxx, where xxxx is the UniqueID.
>> This means, if you change the port signature and maintain the same
>> UniqueID, we would have incompatibilities in the LV2 world. If you
>> create a new plugin or don't touch ports, instead, everything's fine.
>> Stefano
> I'd say you'd even have incompatibilities in LADSPA world. Even fixes in
> LADSPA plugins would sometimes need a new ID (This was discussed a while
> ago regarding a LADSPA that has an unintuitive port order).

Sorry guys but I don't follow you here. Can't you add or remove ports to an
existing plugin in a new release? Does LV2 considers that two plugins with the
same URI but different ports are actually different plugins? As for two C++
functions with the same name but different arguments?


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list