14 May
2004
14 May
'04
1:37 p.m.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 08:36:24AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
well, it appears that there is little to no response
to the proposal
from the LADSPA meeting at ZKM. just to be sure that the silence is an
accurate reflection of what people think, i want to take a harsh
stance on the proposal and see if it generates any response...
if we follow through with the proposal, LADSPA will no longer be a
header file. it will require the use of a library. the actual struct
in the header file will contain the absolute bare minimum information
required to actually run a plugin, nothing more. No port names, no
hints, no default values. we will try to make the library
self-contained, dependency-free, but it will still be more complex
than the current model.
moreover, there will be 2 versions of LADSPA floating around, thus
leading to problems with host/plugin compatibility issues.
there will be LADSPA and LADSPA2.
i dont see what the problem would be ?
we should make sure that the v2plugin metadata contains a hint which
v1 plugin is made obsolete by this v2plugin, so that i can have ladspa 1
and 2 support in the host without the user seeing the same plugin 2 times.
personally, i think its worth going through this pain.
we will end up
with a system in which new LADSPA extensions do not require changes to
the API, which is a great thing. but it will be painful to get there,
and i want to check that people don't mind doing it.
votes++
metadata is metadata.
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language