Re: [LAD] RFC: Default discovery paths for LADSPA, LRDF, LV2 and DSSI (and more?)

On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 19:10 +0300, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
> [using LADSPA unique ids]
> > That is bad of Ecasound, since ladspa.h says:
> >
> > "Plugin types should be identified by file and label rather than by index or plugin name, which may be changed in
> > new plugin versions."

This is an error in ladspa.h

> Ecasound allows to use both label (-el) and unique id (-eli) to identify
> plugins. In many cases label is sufficient (versus file+label), and in the
> rare case of a conflict, then unique-id is a practical way to select the
> correct plugin.

There are conflicts with the unique ID too, but there's no accounting
for broken plugins I guess.

I don't know why people started recommending using the filename/label
over the unique ID, but they shouldn't. This varies even between
different packages of the exact same plugins (e.g. blop, notoriously),
and it's clear from the spec that file/label isn't intended to be
important as an identifier... there's an ID in there, use it.

-dr

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Jul 6 08:15:01 2009