14 May
2004
14 May
'04
5:52 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
re,
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 08:17:30PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:45:58 +0100, Mike Rawes
wrote:
My vague plan was to stop supporting v1 directly and to provide a v1
meta plugin wrapper that presents my v2 plugins via a v1 interface.
The alternaive is that I stop supporting v1 alltogether. The old versions
will still be avialable ofcourse.
gosh, i'm just writing a library for video plugins, inspired to LADSPA
"inspired" means that it is about a simple header, which doesn't
requires a library. see
http://livido.dyne.org/livido-22apr04.tar.gz
we are allready quite some people focusing on it, from different
emerging video applications as FreeJ, VeeJay, PD/PDP, LiVES
what do you say guys, on the long term it's really bad to have this
header-oriented spec? or you're doing the change just now that everybody
joined the train, wouldn't have been a good choice since the beginning? ;>
i'm not provoking, i'm just trying to learn :)
from what i could really understand from this thread. the header/lib
dependency is the main thing which differentiates the LADSPA v1 from v2,
seen from an architectural point of view.
would have been a good choice since the beginning, to have it as a lib?
thanks & respect,
- --
jaromil, dyne.org rasta coder, http://rastasoft.org
Will it
be possible for the same plugin to implement both v1 and
v2?
(I would have thought that was probably a necessity, but then I
don't write plugins.)
Ooh. That's a good point...
I've written a few plugins, and the thought of maintaining two versions of
otherwise identical plugins doesn't appeal. It is possible to combine two
versions in the source, and determine which version to build at compile time. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Cryptographically signed mail, see http://gnupg.org
iD8DBQFApSLwWLCC1ltubZcRAohEAJ95ZHdJ+8KfIvKDks83yFvi71/WDACePJPO
EZgd5JGmJcvE09DfrupTeq0=
=LF+l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----