25 Apr
2006
25 Apr
'06
8:04 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 05:58:08PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 23:58 +0200, Leonard
"paniq" Ritter wrote:
Well, with sufficeint use of calloc and careful spec wording its possible
to get the same affect with no change to the struct, but I just dont see
the point. The plugin and host code has to change anyway, and its less
ugly if its removed.
If we ever have an ABI change in the future then the LADSPA 1
pseudo-compatibility will be lost anyway.
- Steve
Ok, some thoughts about the headerfile:
[snip]
after reading this i do not see why a new ladspa
header is required.
there are barely any changes in 2. i think this is going to become more
confusing than helpful, especially since it will not be possible to load
ladspa 1+2 plugins in the same host with ease (yes, people do not like
to fix orphaned code and recompile binaries, imagine!).
You are completely missing the entire point of LADSPA2. All the
unecessary data has been removed from the header file (ie the plugin
code).
Look at the example plugin's code, it will be painfully obvious what the
advantage is.