28 Apr
2011
28 Apr
'11
5:40 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:43 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
Indeed.
-dr
On 18 April 2011 15:50, David Robillard
<d(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
Well, sure, a broken ID is... well, broken. It's not something you can
work around by using an even more broken non-ID. There's no reason
someone couldn't do the same thing with library name and label.
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 19:16 +0100, Chris Cannam
wrote:
Indeed, but at least the typical failure case (when the library name
differs from the expected one) is that the plugin isn't loaded and the
program can report it, rather than that the wrong plugin is loaded
silently as occurs with the numerical ID. Library name plus label, for example.
That is not guaranteed to be unique, and I know of at least one case in
practise where it isn't (various blop packages have a different library
name). There's no reason whatsoever the library name and label of
various LADSPA plugin distributions can't be completely different,
neither one is an ID. Perhaps the
LADSPA spec /should/ use that (or whatever else) as an
identifier, but it doesn't.
As Stefano pointed out, it does in fact say "plugin types should be
identified by file and label". I admit the text is strange given the
presence of the ID as well.
file name + label would be a really annoying
two-piece identifier
anyway, even if it was an actual global identifer.
So make a pseudo URI or something out of it.
Anyway, the situation is a bit unsatisfactory either way and I don't
think we disagree on that -- probably not much point in arguing about
the details these days. A proper URI is a better option in any
circumstance.