Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA 2

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 06:40:32 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > For the sake of the record, it's been duked out on IRC and Steve
> > wins :). (Specifically, ports will be required to have a unique string
> > ID, but it will live in the data file, not the code).
>
> Actually I didn't mean to say that they /will/ be required, just that I
> don't have a problem with it. I've not heard anyone else speak in favour
> of this, and it is a feature. If theres a critical mass of support I'm OK
> with adding it, as it should make the lives of some hosts much easier.

Well then let me weigh in. I have in the past cursed the insensibility
of referencing a port with its arbitrary (from the human's POV)
numerical ID. I want human-friendly port IDs.

> At the risk of upsetting Dave, it can be added a a 3rd party extension
> without anything really bad happening. It just means that the Pd messages
> / OSC paths / whatever for some plugins will be ugly. "Market pressure"
> will ensire that all plugins support it if its useful to enough users.

Ick. I'm all for market pressure, but this is not the place for it, IMHO.

-- 
Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net
 
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the 
right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
    -- Johann Sebastian Bach