Re: [linux-audio-dev] LV2 update

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:58 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 15:26 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:39:30 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > I can make the plugin validating host check the latency primitively (eg
> > > run a single sample through the buffer) and fail if it isn't reported
> > > correctly, so we're sure the LADSPA latency woes are gone.
> >
> > What if it's a delay line? I think you have to reply on the concience of
> > plugin programmers to get it right.
>
> we could require plugins that delay the signal but are not latent to
> have the required port (which would report zero)

Still a bit hackish for my tastes. The plugin reporting it's latency all
by it self is the-right-thing-to-do (tm). If hosts need to measure the
latency, it gets hairy. The hosts would need to take measurements every
time a plugin parameter changes, etc..

Let's just standardize an extension for latency ports after the release
of LV2. And let's do it FAST, so that most plugin writers will be
porting their plugins with the extension in place.

-- 
Sampo Savolainen <v2@email-addr-hidden>