23 Apr
2006
23 Apr
'06
4:32 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 19:23 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:25:59AM -0400, Dave
Robillard wrote:
The advantage is the mentioned use case which your suggestion destroys.
The array can be static anyway, there's not really any "code" added.
Are you proposing to put the port index numbers in the metadata as well?
Otherwise you couldn't get at them without loading and linking the
plugin.
So the plugin URI should exclusively go in the metadata file as well?
Why is that in the code?
-DR-
But anyway, why can't it go in the code? I
want to keep the C part
minimal as well, but this is a unique identifier, the sole thing that
actually does belong in the code. I need this to create an app/device
like the above. What's the better reason it's a bad idea? Plugins have
a unique string ID, and I need ports to as well.
Theres no advantage to it being in the code, it means allocating an array
of strings, which means repeating the same code in every plugin. Also, you
can't get the strings unless you load and link the plugin, which is one of
the things were trying to get away from.