8 Nov
2007
8 Nov
'07
8:58 p.m.
2007/11/8, Nedko Arnaudov <nedko(a)arnaudov.name>me>:
David Olofson <david(a)olofson.net> writes:
I do totally agree.
Stefano D'Angelo
On Thursday 08 November 2007, Nedko Arnaudov
wrote:
[...]
Point is whether arbitrary and fixed chunk allocators be in one
extension. I tend to think that they should be separate because
algorythms behind them are quite different and host may choose to
implement only one of them. Also most lock free algorithms are patented
so this can be point of host supporting only one feature set. There were rumors in #lad that such functionality
may be useful
without lv2dynparam extension.
Well, yes; real time safe dynamic memory management can make life a
lot easier for some types of plugins, and/or reduce memory
requirements by having a shared pool. However, I think it needs to be
more generic than just a pool of fixed size chunks for the "shared
pool" part to be viable.