On 16 November 2010 00:24, Chip VanDan <chip.vandan@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On 15 November 2010 15:11, Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> ...
>> LV2 represents some kind of version of the community's best-effort
>> attempt to define a better plugin API. It is hard to explain why LV2
>> is so superior because its rooted in a feature that actually makes it
>> quite annoying for anyone who isn't instantly convinced that endless
>> extensibility is the right goal. But it allows for more or less
>> anything, assuming that both parties (the plugin and the host) can
>> agree on it.
>
> I followed you up to this paragraph. LADSPA started it, DSSI improved
> on it, and LV2 tried to be the end-all-be-all (the final solution) if
> I'm understanding correctly. Oh, and VAMP is sort of a side-show
> freak. But can you explain what you mean here, "assuming that both
> parties can agree on it"?
>
I think that the LV2 site http://lv2plug.in/ explains this point :
"LV2 is not limited to the features built in to the "core"
specification. Instead, extensions to LV2 can be defined independently
and used by hosts and plugins." A plugin writer can add capabilities,
but if the host doesn't recognise them, they will not be used by that
host.
Fritz
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Tue Nov 16 04:15:01 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 16 2010 - 04:15:01 EET