7 Jul
2009
7 Jul
'09
9:28 a.m.
On 7 Jul 2009, at 11:06, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM,
<hollunder(a)gmx.at> wrote:
I'm disinclined to think too much about how to fix LADSPA, all these
problems and more are fixed in LV2. Plugin developers should be
migrating off LADSPA.
But, what about, from now on, all LADSPA labels should be the plugin
URI (only restriction is non whitespace, fine), and the UID should be
(MD5($uri) % 2^32) & 0x1000000 so it doesn't clash with the previous
allocated space. There's a reasonable chance of collisions if we have
2^15 plugins in the wild (lets hope not), but as has been said,
globally unique integer IDs are just a bad idea anyway.
Will break any hosts the check to see if the UID is in the legitimate
range of course.
- Steve
Changing the ID with every plugin change seems
ridiculous
Well, it's just a question for your own judgment. Regardless of the
sort of identifier you use, when you change it your plugin will appear
to be a different plugin, so you need to decide whether a change is
big enough that your new version can't directly stand in for the old.
That's all.
"- I'm still waiting on a unique ID from
the LADSPA people, and so
the
LADSPA unique ID needs to be changed. Right now it's set to 1000."
http://web.mit.edu/tbaran/www/autotalent.html
no further comment m'lud.