25 Apr
2006
25 Apr
'06
11:02 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 19:59 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
no i do not want to do that. this is a misunderstanding. please explain
how you got this impression.
i have seen things you humans will never understand.
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:23 +0200, Leonard
"paniq" Ritter wrote:
i agree. but i suppose this is a misunderstanding. why do you think it
is a crazy idea?
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:46 -0400, Dave Robillard
wrote:
Where did you get this crazy idea? The whole point is that different
hosts can provide different features. Plugins must be able to refuse hosts and hosts
must be able to refuse
plugins. It's the only way to allow extensions. I _guarantee_ plugins
will exist that some hosts just don't want (they already do with
LADSPA1), and some plugins will exists that require features hosts are
not required to provide. This is a Good Thing.
maybe in a Perfect World. in practice, we are going to face irritations
when plugins demand weird non-unified URIs to be passed in order to run
at all. from what i see, no new URIs can be invented without requiring
immediate support in all available hosts and plugins that initially
only work for one host are not that cool. ergo, the "feature" of
blocking instantiation for a host not passing a required URI will be
rarely used, for the simple reason that it might not work with all
hosts. thus, do not allow it by spec.
You want to impose plugins work on the lowest common denominator of
hosts. Basically this amounts to mandating that certain plugins simply
can not exist. Why would you want to do that? i hope this is taken care of! the new header
suggests replacement, not
complementation.
The fact that you even considered that someone would really do this is
frightening. Not an issue ;)
If you think the header should be all the documentation required, then
you completely Don't Get It on a fundamental level. Read the example
plugin - all of it.
i was able to implement a working ladspa host implementation only from
the header, and that was a good experience. i would like it if it could
stay that way. a tiny reference to an additional document that should be
read in the header would also be cool. not mentioning required
literature is unfriendly ;)
--
-- leonard "paniq" ritter
-- http://www.mjoo.org
-- http://www.paniq.org