Re: [linux-audio-dev] LV2 update

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 21:37 +0300, Sampo Savolainen wrote:
> 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.

I think this should be included in the spec, since it's devastating when
plugins don't adhere. I believe Steve agrees with me (Steve?)

-DR-
Received on Wed Jun 21 04:15:06 2006