Re: [LAD] [ann] CAPS 0.4.5

2011/3/30 David Robillard <d@drobilla.net>:
> 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.

Mmm.. so I could maybe add the port number to the URI and add
dc:replaces, like this:

<urn:ladspa:1234:5> a lv2:Plugin ; dc:replaces <urn:ladspa:1234> .

Yet, I should send patches to those plugin authors providing both LV2
and LADSPA versions of their plugins (the same holds true for DSSI, I
guess).

At the moment I don't seem to be able to come up with a better solution. :-S

Stefano
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Mar 30 16:15:04 2011