yes, on closer looks this header seems to be the equivalent of the
host interface SDK header, not the ones for creating plugins.
The question is whether there is the equivalent VeSTige C++
headers for plugins. Of course the base class implementation is
also good to have (but it might possible to reimplement it alright).
My reasons for looking at this is that I would have liked to build
a VST plugin example from the ground up without having to
depend on the SDK, with LGPL or similar license. It's an
educational thing.
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Cannam" <cannam(a)all-day-breakfast.com>
To: "victor" <Victor.Lazzarini(a)nuim.ie>
Cc: "Paul Davis" <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>om>; "Linux Audio
Developers"
<linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [LAD] VeSTige headers
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:53 PM,
victor<Victor.Lazzarini(a)nuim.ie> wrote:
Does anyone know whether it is possible to write
fully-compatible
VST plugins with this header? It does seem to have a lot less than
the VST SDK headers on first looks. Or is this just meant for
writing hosts?
I'm not completely confident about this, but I think that effectively
it's only good for hosts.
The header contains everything that a "normal" host in "normal" use
will use to communicate with a plugin, so you can certainly use it to
write a plugin that would work in this situation. But it isn't
complete; a host could invoke things not specified in this header, and
your plugin won't respond correctly to them if your only reference is
this header (as it presumably will be if you aren't to trangress
against the VST licence). So your plugin might work in other hosts,
but I don't see how you could be sure of that.
On a practical level, of course, most existing plugins derive from the
C++ classes provided in the SDK, which have no equivalent here. So
you'd have to do more work.
Chris