2009/7/6 Chris Cannam <cannam@email-addr-hidden-day-breakfast.com>:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:01 AM, David Robillard<dave@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>> There are conflicts with the unique ID too, but there's no accounting
>> for broken plugins I guess.
>
> Filename/label can be made to work; "unique" ID can't, for any dynamic
> or automatically generated plugin library.
>
> Take dssi-vst for example. It consists of a single library that
> publishes many LADSPA plugins, whose number and type are unknown until
> run time. It can't map them onto a reserved range because it doesn't
> know in advance what plugins it may have to wrap. It can't
> realistically generate a good hashed value, because of the range
> limitation given in the LADSPA header ("below 0x1000000") and the need
> to avoid reserved ranges. It can't pass through the VST plugin's
> existing numerical ID, because these are typically generated by
> mapping from strings or hashing, and consequently are also usually out
> of range, and anyway it can't know whether a LADSPA plugin of the same
> ID already exists.
>
> I was sorely tempted to make it use the unique ID of 1 for every
> plugin. I didn't, but the method it actually uses is really no better
> in practice.
>
> I realise many on this list won't care about wrapping VSTs, but any
> generated wrapper plugin (e.g. from Faust) will have the same problem.
>
> Never rely on the "unique" ID of a LADSPA plugin.
>
> (URIs are far better than either filename/label or numerical ID of course.)
/me quotes Chris entirely.
Stefano
_______________________________________________
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 20:15:02 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 06 2009 - 20:15:02 EEST