22 Apr
2006
22 Apr
'06
2:22 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 19:12 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
We haven't heard from a number of key people yet,
but I think the overall
impression is positive so far. There are a number of decisions that need
to be made if it's going to go ahead. Either things that I didn't
consider, or where I made arbitrary choices:
A) Dropping runAdding: personally I dont think runAdding is worthwhile. How
many hosts take advantage of it? Its something LADSPA 1.1 can do and 2.0
wouldn't be able to though.
B) RDF syntax: RDF/Turtle seems a lot more popular in these parts than
RDF/XML. We could mandate Turtle for all LADSPA metadata.
Personally I think it's ugly and strange and arbitrary and just weird
all around, but whatever. I don't really care. :)
E) Bundles: no-one screamed when I suggested it, but
its a bit different to
LADSPA 1's /lib directory. Hosts would be required to allow the plugin
link to libraries in the bundle if they need to (this is why OPENSTEP did
it, I guess its done by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH, but I dont know), which
is a bit more work, but makes moving plugins between machines easier. Oh,
and the plugins needs to have the path of its bundle passed to it when its
instantiated, which isn't in the API right now.
I like the bundle idea, but I thik we need to have a long hard think
about this WRT distro package management systems and FHS compliance. We
do need some way of allowing plugins to load libraries though, but is it
really necessary to do the DLL Hell thing to allow it?
-DR-