1 Nov
2009
1 Nov
'09
11:19 a.m.
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 09:44 +1100, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
To be fair it was in the context of adoption not as an overall sweeping
statement about the entire LV2 system which everyone agrees is a very
powerful and flexible model for plugin development and IMO deserves
greater recognition as best of breed in open source thinking and wider
adoption from the worldwide community of plugin developers.
Fair enough :)
On 11/01/2009 08:11 AM, David Robillard wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 15:32 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Robillard<dave(a)drobilla.net>
wrote:
[...]
If i am wrting a plugin, and the current LV2 spec +
existing
extensions do not provide some functionality that I would like to use,
then i can create a new extension. excellent.
Fine and good. Except that's not what's usually said, and
that's not
what was initially said here. LV2 is, apparently, a "catastrophic
failure". When it's not that, it's usually FUD or misinformation about
the extension idea itself. Excuses and whining, not arguments and
solutions. I agree there is a difference, and more of the latter would
be nice.
> There is nothing magical about API defined in an
extension as opposed to
> "LV2". If LV2 was a monolithic specification - well, it wouldn't
> actually exist in any finished or usable state at all, but let's make
> that huge leap and pretend it is - then this same situation would exist.
> Feature foo needs to be implemented by a host regardless. The
> difference is, with a monolithic specification feature foo not being
> implemented by the host means that host doesn't support anything LV2, at
> all, whatsoever, end of story. This is clearly inferior.
So, maybe it would be a good use of time to resolve
this inadequacy as a
priority before moving onto other items?
? The inadequacy is with a hypothetical monolithic alternative to LV2,
not with LV2. If LV2 attempted to go this way, there would be /zero/
adoption...
-dr