22 Apr
2006
22 Apr
'06
3:25 p.m.
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:06:26PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 17:30 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
OK, that's an argument I could buy. i'm still not completly convinced, but
it does make some sense.
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 02:26:57PM +0200,
Thorsten Wilms wrote:
I'm not going to suggest ID numbers go away, but I do think ports should
have a uniquely identifying string label. Primary reason being OSC
control, and using plugins in language bindings (ie python) - both
things that are getting much more prevalent now than when LADSPA first
arrived. Referencing:
There needs to be a safe way to reference plugins and their ports.
Portnames make for human readable patch files, but this doesn't
work with i18n, when Attack becomes Einschwingzeit ;)
Plugins have URIs! And ports have uniqe identifying numbers within the
plugin. We could assign URIs to ports too, but I think thats going too
far. Noone wants to set the frequency of an oscillator with
the OSC message
"/set oscillator/4 440" when they could "/set oscillator/freq 440".
Or
plugin.port(4).set_value(440) when it could be
plugin.port("frequency").set_value(440). Code (or OSC messages) using
plugin indexes as IDs is completely unreadable.
This is actually very important to me, I would very much like unique
port string ID's for the above reasons unless there's a good reason
there can't be.
I guess you mean unique in plugin scope? It would also have to have some
restriction on what values it could take, eg. [a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_]+ some
kind of lowest common denominator between symbols for various languages
would make sense.
- Steve