Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA proposal ...
From: torbenh_AT_gmx.de
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 18:33:37 EEST
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 08:36:24AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> well, it appears that there is little to no response to the proposal
> from the LADSPA meeting at ZKM. just to be sure that the silence is an
> accurate reflection of what people think, i want to take a harsh
> stance on the proposal and see if it generates any response...
>
> if we follow through with the proposal, LADSPA will no longer be a
> header file. it will require the use of a library. the actual struct
> in the header file will contain the absolute bare minimum information
> required to actually run a plugin, nothing more. No port names, no
> hints, no default values. we will try to make the library
> self-contained, dependency-free, but it will still be more complex
> than the current model.
>
> moreover, there will be 2 versions of LADSPA floating around, thus
> leading to problems with host/plugin compatibility issues.
there will be LADSPA and LADSPA2.
i dont see what the problem would be ?
we should make sure that the v2plugin metadata contains a hint which
v1 plugin is made obsolete by this v2plugin, so that i can have ladspa 1
and 2 support in the host without the user seeing the same plugin 2 times.
> personally, i think its worth going through this pain. we will end up
> with a system in which new LADSPA extensions do not require changes to
> the API, which is a great thing. but it will be painful to get there,
> and i want to check that people don't mind doing it.
votes++
metadata is metadata.
-- torben Hohn http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 14 2004 - 18:29:19 EEST