Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA extension - Formal proposal.
From: Jan Weil (Jan.Weil_AT_web.de)
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 12:14:02 EET
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 01:12, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:36:54 +0100, Jan Weil wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 21:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > > /* This hint must be used only together with LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER.
> >
> > [snip explanation on multiway switches]
> >
> > > #define LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED 0x400
> >
> > Since this is a special hint which implies LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER,
> > shouldn't this be made clear to the plugin coder explicitly?
> >
> > #define LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED (0x400 | LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER)
> >
> > FWIW the very fact that one hint implies another hint makes me feel a
> > little uncomfortable.
>
> I think it would be safer to /not/ enforce this and require the plugin
> authors to explicitly say LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER as well to make sure they
> know what there doing.
>
> Hosts could reject any plugin that has LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED and not
> LADSPA_HINT_INTEGER.
Well, since these are _hints_ I'd suggest to just ignore
LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED in this case. Otherwise a simpler minded host
(applyplugin) might let you use this plugin without problems while your
sophisticated pro app refuses to touch it.
Or is this what you'd expect?
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Mar 10 2004 - 12:15:55 EET