24 Apr
2006
24 Apr
'06
10:59 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 06:40:32 -0400, Dave Robillard
wrote:
Not so much a new feature as a clearer definition of existing things
(port labels).
It's a "feature" perhaps, but just something that needs to be defined in
the data file. The features we need to avoid here are ones that mess
with the code IMO. There are a few new bits of data that experience has
shown we need to add to the data file (not mandatory like this one, just
possible keys). Given how easy and un-breakey it is to do so (which is
the entire point of doing this after all), we should take advantage.
Anyway, at this point that's not very important, just definition of
possible keys in the data file. We can discuss those once we're sure
the code side of things (and existing data bits) is sound.
-DR-
For the sake of the record, it's been duked
out on IRC and Steve
wins :). (Specifically, ports will be required to have a unique string
ID, but it will live in the data file, not the code).
Actually I didn't mean to say that they /will/ be required, just that I
don't have a problem with it. I've not heard anyone else speak in favour
of this, and it is a feature. If theres a critical mass of support I'm OK
with adding it, as it should make the lives of some hosts much easier.
At the risk of upsetting Dave, it can be added a a 3rd party extension
without anything really bad happening. It just means that the Pd messages
/ OSC paths / whatever for some plugins will be ugly. "Market pressure"
will ensire that all plugins support it if its useful to enough users.