On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:16:43 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 May 2005 09:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > So why wasn't the unique ID the thing to use?
>
> Because it's impossible to find any way to guarantee it's actually
> unique, for example in the case of a wrapper plugin that generates
> plugins on the fly. ladspa-vst / dssi-vst are obvious real-world
> examples. (DSSI deprecates the LADSPA "unique" ID for this reason --
> there are a few paragraphs about it in the current DSSI RFC.)
Its only impossible because its centrally administered, if it were URI
based (or UUID etc.) then it would be much easier for fixed plugins, and
possible for most dynamic ones.
This was one of the problems that LADSPA 2.0 was supposed to solve.
- Steve
Received on Fri May 20 16:15:08 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 20 2005 - 16:15:08 EEST