On 18 April 2011 15:50, David Robillard <d@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 19:16 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
>> Library name plus label, for example.
>
> That is not guaranteed to be unique, and I know of at least one case in
> practise where it isn't (various blop packages have a different library
> name). There's no reason whatsoever the library name and label of
> various LADSPA plugin distributions can't be completely different,
> neither one is an ID.
Indeed, but at least the typical failure case (when the library name
differs from the expected one) is that the plugin isn't loaded and the
program can report it, rather than that the wrong plugin is loaded
silently as occurs with the numerical ID.
> Perhaps the LADSPA spec /should/ use that (or whatever else) as an
> identifier, but it doesn't.
As Stefano pointed out, it does in fact say "plugin types should be
identified by file and label". I admit the text is strange given the
presence of the ID as well.
> file name + label would be a really annoying two-piece identifier
> anyway, even if it was an actual global identifer.
So make a pseudo URI or something out of it.
Anyway, the situation is a bit unsatisfactory either way and I don't
think we disagree on that -- probably not much point in arguing about
the details these days. A proper URI is a better option in any
circumstance.
Chris
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Apr 26 16:15:01 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 26 2011 - 16:15:02 EEST