Re: [LAD] [ann] CAPS 0.4.5

On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:43 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
> 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.

Well, sure, a broken ID is... well, broken. It's not something you can
work around by using an even more broken non-ID. There's no reason
someone couldn't do the same thing with library name and label.

> > 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.

Indeed.

-dr

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Apr 28 20:15:02 2011