13 Jun
2010
13 Jun
'10
2:51 p.m.
mis-replied to gabriel only .....
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [LAD] minimal LV2
To: "Gabriel M. Beddingfield" <gabrbedd(a)gmail.com>
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield
<gabrbedd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
but given that the result would be:
1) a host that explicitly understood some alternative plugin API
2) a plugin that, other than its manfest.ttl file and accompanying
.so file, was barely an LV2 plugin at all
3) more specifically, a plugin that would not run in the majority
of LV2 hosts
its difficult to see why you wouldn't simply define your own plugin
API. the discovery process has to be one of the least interesting
parts of LV2 (or any plugin API that i can think of) and co-opting it
appears to me to save oneself almost no work at all.
Can an LV2 extension redefine everything except
the
mimimum required for discovery ? This includes the
way ports are described, the way the host is supposed
to call the plugin etc. ?
Pretty much, yes. Here's how: