Dave Robillard wrote:
> Heavy handed over-definition like this is exactly what LV2 is designed
> to avoid ;)
And what's the intention behind it? What do you intend to achieve with LV2?
I mean, freedom is good, but predictable behaviour and maximum
compatibility between implementations is one of the reasons behind
standardisation, in my opinion.
By "predictable behaviour" I mean predictable to non-technical end
users, not just to developers. I don't know how many non-technical end
users do you know, but you may bet that once you start describing
feature sets in hosts and plugins they'll go "lalala I can't hear you" :)
Also, notice that introducing those "levels" doesn't prevent
custom/proprietary features in any way. Which is why my proposal is all
but "heavy handed". The only thing it's "heavy handed" about is
promoting implementation of basic infrastructure in hosts. Just like
power socket standard is heavy handed about the voltage and physical
layout/function of the pins.
I think you should ask people with more experience about history of
standards like DX, VST or Buzz - evolution, early bugs, what features
did they offer and how they were used etc. Otherwise, you're doomed to
repeat the same mistakes the authors of those standards had made. Which
will possibly mean "death by arrogance" of the new standard.
There's an old saying (I don't know who coined it) - "those who don't
know Unix are doomed to reinvent it, poorly" - I think it's the same
with all kinds of plugin APIs.
Krzysztof
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Nov 13 16:15:02 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 13 2007 - 16:15:02 EET