6 Nov
2009
6 Nov
'09
noon
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 07:17 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
there was a revision to the core specification,
and it was a fairly deep revision at that, albeit a small one. this
made one (and at this point, it really does look like one) extension
that was written using an older version of the spec now technically
invalid (even though in practice it still works). this could
theoretically happen any time that the core spec is modified, and it
underlines how much more important it is for that to remain stable if
useful functionality is developed in the more "ad hoc distributed" way
that the extension mechanism provides for.
Definitely. It was not done lightly :)
This was really sort of a special case since it had to do with
identifiers and versioning. I would be very surprised if anything like
it has to happen again.
so, i don't really see this as having much to do
with LV2, its current
state or its design philosophy. i'd also note that while i too have
been critical of LV2's design, i don't see anything else that can move
us past the state of affairs that LADSPA represents.
<insert obligatory GMPI joke here>
-dr