Subject: RE: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA Plugin Uniqueness
From: David Olofson (david_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Sat Mar 25 2000 - 22:19:24 EET
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Richard W.E. Furse wrote:
> The problem with this is that different developers will need different
> numbers of plugins - most will probably want about 5, a few (e.g. big
> system developers) might need hundreds. These requirements pack far better
> into 24bits if we don't break the bits up into a 'developer' and 'plugin'
> part.
Ok, so we don't use developer IDs, but rather let developers reserve
the number of IDs they need. Better use of the "limited" 24 bit
range. (That's quite a few plugins, after all... :-)
> And to answer your other email, I agree - I was planning that IDs 1-1000
> would not be allocated so there was a range for people to 'play around'
> with, particularly for development. Claims for 1001+ are welcome now - I
> don't think it would be fair for me to take them...
>
> I know this isn't as nice as could be, but it's simple and compatible with
> everything. These can be mapped into a 64bit scheme (perhaps in MuCoS?) by
> reserving a single developer ID.
Well, I don't know if MuCoS will be stand-alone enough to warrant
having it's own plugin ID scheme. As of now, it seems that it'll be
little more than an event system, that can be used as an extension
for LADSPA, or for IPC.
//David
.- M u C o S --------------------------------. .- David Olofson ------.
| A Free/Open Multimedia | | Audio Hacker |
| Plugin and Integration Standard | | Linux Advocate |
`------------> http://www.linuxdj.com/mucos -' | Open Source Advocate |
.- A u d i a l i t y ------------------------. | Singer |
| Rock Solid Low Latency Signal Processing | | Songwriter |
`---> http://www.angelfire.com/or/audiality -' `-> david_AT_linuxdj.com -'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Mar 25 2000 - 22:51:22 EET