29 Mar
2011
29 Mar
'11
8:52 p.m.
[Philipp Überbacher]
Excerpts from Stefano D'Angelo's message of
2011-03-28 22:59:46 +0200:
Lacking sufficient knowledge of all the LADSPA hosts out there, I'm
unable to judge how many will cope with the addition of a port to an
existing plugin and how many will not.
However, I'd expect any host on whose design reasonably deep thought
has been expended to simply use the new plugin in place of the
previous one, with the the new port set to its default value. In this
case the plugin will operate exactly the same way the old version did.
(For what it's worth, ladspa.h does not mandate that a plugins' port
signature never changes.)
It is very unfortunate that such a change might break the way your
bridge code works, Stefano, and I would like to apologise in advance.
(If the addition of a 'version' symbol exported by caps.so is any
help, I'll be happy to add that.)
Cheers, Tim
This means, if you change the port signature and maintain the same
UniqueID, we would have incompatibilities in the LV2 world. If you
create a new plugin or don't touch ports, instead, everything's fine.
Stefano
I'd say you'd even have incompatibilities in LADSPA world. Even fixes in
LADSPA plugins would sometimes need a new ID (This was discussed a while
ago regarding a LADSPA that has an unintuitive port order).