On 29/03/11 02:59 PM, Tim Goetze wrote:
> [Philipp �berbacher]
>
>
>> Excerpts from Stefano D'Angelo's message of 2011-03-28 22:59:46 +0200:
>>
>>> This means, if you change the port signature and maintain the same
>>> UniqueID, we would have incompatibilities in the LV2 world. If you
>>> create a new plugin or don't touch ports, instead, everything's fine.
>>>
>>> Stefano
>>>
>> I'd say you'd even have incompatibilities in LADSPA world. Even fixes in
>> LADSPA plugins would sometimes need a new ID (This was discussed a while
>> ago regarding a LADSPA that has an unintuitive port order).
>>
> Lacking sufficient knowledge of all the LADSPA hosts out there, I'm
> unable to judge how many will cope with the addition of a port to an
> existing plugin and how many will not.
>
/Adding/ a port is probably fine, since hosts can just use the default
value or connect it to silence.
However, "adding" here really means "appending": the new ports must be
added on to the end of the ports (by index). Definitely do NOT change
existing indices for ports, that will definitely break a lot of things
in horrible ways! It's not even possible to properly cope with that
situation.
Cheers,
-dr
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Mar 30 08:15:02 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 30 2011 - 08:15:02 EEST