On 23 Jan 2008, at 10:10, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> Steve Harris wrote:
>
>> To my mind it's better for us to develop a large suite of tools
>> and plugins to demonstrate the viability and advantages before we go
>
> I think we indeed need lots of testing tools - like debugging hosts/
> plugins spiked with lots of pre/postcondition checks, or even some
> validity checking libraries that could be easily inserted
> (#ifdef'ed) into "real" hosts/plugins, to check plugin/host
> behaviour in "real world".
>
> I recall what incomplete/buggy standard implementations did in Buzz
> and VST worlds, and it'd be nice to have some tools to prevent
> repeating the same nightmare.
>
> As for "who will write it", I guess it can't be a single-person
> project, because just one person is unlikely to come up with *all*
> the useful checks (and it would be incredibly boring anyway).
Hah, you're right, though there are some people who have a knack for,
and get a kick out of writing conformance tools.
Like Nick Lamb, who wrote Demolition for LADSPA: http://devel.tlrmx.org/audio/demolition/
I don't think anyone ever wrote a set up conformance plugins for
LADSPA that measured host conformance though - that would also be
useful.
- Steve
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jan 23 16:15:05 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 23 2008 - 16:15:05 EET