30 Mar
2011
30 Mar
'11
1:40 p.m.
2011/3/30 David Robillard <d(a)drobilla.net>et>:
On 29/03/11 02:59 PM, Tim Goetze wrote:
Mmm.. so I could maybe add the port number to the URI and add
dc:replaces, like this:
<urn:ladspa:1234:5> a lv2:Plugin ; dc:replaces <urn:ladspa:1234> .
Yet, I should send patches to those plugin authors providing both LV2
and LADSPA versions of their plugins (the same holds true for DSSI, I
guess).
At the moment I don't seem to be able to come up with a better solution. :-S
Stefano
[Philipp �berbacher]
/Adding/ a port is probably fine, since hosts can just use the default value
or connect it to silence.
However, "adding" here really means "appending": the new ports must
be added
on to the end of the ports (by index). Definitely do NOT change existing
indices for ports, that will definitely break a lot of things in horrible
ways! It's not even possible to properly cope with that situation.
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.
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).