On 7 Jul 2009, at 11:06, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM, <hollunder@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>> Changing the ID with every plugin change seems ridiculous
>
> Well, it's just a question for your own judgment. Regardless of the
> sort of identifier you use, when you change it your plugin will appear
> to be a different plugin, so you need to decide whether a change is
> big enough that your new version can't directly stand in for the old.
> That's all.
>
>> "- I'm still waiting on a unique ID from the LADSPA people, and so
>> the
>> LADSPA unique ID needs to be changed. Right now it's set to 1000."
>> http://web.mit.edu/tbaran/www/autotalent.html
>
> no further comment m'lud.
I'm disinclined to think too much about how to fix LADSPA, all these
problems and more are fixed in LV2. Plugin developers should be
migrating off LADSPA.
But, what about, from now on, all LADSPA labels should be the plugin
URI (only restriction is non whitespace, fine), and the UID should be
(MD5($uri) % 2^32) & 0x1000000 so it doesn't clash with the previous
allocated space. There's a reasonable chance of collisions if we have
2^15 plugins in the wild (lets hope not), but as has been said,
globally unique integer IDs are just a bad idea anyway.
Will break any hosts the check to see if the UID is in the legitimate
range of course.
- Steve
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Jul 7 16:15:02 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 07 2009 - 16:15:02 EEST