Re: [LAD] How to develop guis for LV2?

David Robillard <dave@email-addr-hidden> writes:

> New idea: it is tempting to define a very simple turtle document format
> for hosts to signify what they support, then this kind of compatibility
> information could be automatically generated as well (and in a much more
> useful form than a human could put together). The information is
> already there for plugins. As far as I'm concerned the lack of
> automatically generated documentation (and/or machine readable data in
> general) is pretty much the sole reason for every single complaint
> related to this whole thing. This way is also decentralized, but the
> results for all "known" implementations could be hosted at lv2plug.in
> (or anywhere else) for convenience.
>
> I am surprised I didn't think of this before, but it seems to be a
> pretty good idea. All that is needed as far as maintenance goes is for
> hosts to supply a simple turtle document that says "I implement foo and
> bar and baz extensions". The rest can be compiled into whatever fancy
> human readable form you want, for every single plugin out there, by a
> tool. If I provide a template, would anyone be willing to put together
> these documents? I will gladly write the tool if the data is there, and
> the problem will be solved, and a convention set that solves it in the
> future with basically no effort involved.

I've been thinking about this for a while and IMHO, it is best to put it
in the DOAP. OTOH, when things change they do change. And what user
really cares is whether plugin and host are compatible in the versions
that are supplied by their distro.

>> IMHO, the two basic questions that user will have are:
>>
>> 1. Will the plugin X that I use a lot work on host Y that I want to try?
>> 2. Will the host W that I use a lot work well with the plugin Z I've found?
>
> 3. How "well supported" is this extension, and should I use it in my new
> plugin?
>
> This question needs an overview. Even if plugin and host authors supply
> this information, an overview is useful.

This is where user comments come. Some distros can assign comments to
packages, I've seen this in Arch, when I tried it recently.

-- 
Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: DE1716B0>

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev