Re: [LAD] "enhanced event port" LV2 extension proposal

Lars Luthman wrote: I think that might work. But then, you can only pass object pointer events that are known to the recipient. Especially in plugin-to-host direction (because with host-to-plugins, the host can just decref any object used in an event after plugin's process function ends, no big deal). This assumption is acceptable, in my opinion. Advantages: - simpler and shorter specification - modularity Disadvantages: - you can't tell between an object pointer (which cannot be just copied over the network or between processes) and normal data (which can be copied freely); at least not using this specification alone As long as some additional specification for passing object pointers in events follows this specification (some day), I'm fine with it. There is also a possible middle ground - an event type declaration in rdf would say not just what URI it corresponds to, but also if it contains any "unsafe" data (like pointers, handles etc). Just to possibly prevent a hypothetical transparent network/interprocess bridge from trying to smuggle pointers between process boundaries, which could lead to unexplained crashes :) Good. So let's postpone that part for now, it will go into different extension(s). Krzysztof