On 23 Jan 2008, at 14:35, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 10:10 +0000, 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".
>
> IMO all the descriptions of restrictions in lv2.ttl that are currently
> in comments should be in machine readable form for this reason.
> Having
> that stuff in comments only is pretty silly, really.
That's a good idea, obviously - but it can be hard to express those
kinds of restrictions in a machine readable form, even in RDF :)
Also, it will tend to complicate the schema, which is currently quite
simple.
Perhaps it would make a good adjunct file? tv2-restrictions.ttl or
something?
- 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 20:15:16 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 23 2008 - 20:15:16 EET