On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 12:44 -0400, Thomas Vecchione wrote: > The end user will have some plugins that are 'LV2' that will work in > some 'LV2' hosts but not others. How are they to know? Will they have > to have 'LV2 and supports these features' that they will have to check > off every time to see if it should be working or not? > > Or 'Profiles' that fit a certain set of features?
You could have meta-extensions that were simply a collection of other extensions. "To support this extension, a host must support extensions A, B, and C". Or something like that. > Perhaps LV2 should by default include extensions that encompass the > points brought up here instead of dismissing them as capable of being > done, as if they can be done in one host, not nesseccarily in all, then > you have one giant mass of confusion in as far as what plugins can be > sued here, there or whatever, and instead of a standard plugin format, > we have a giant clusterf**k. I don't think there is any huge danger of that happening. People will probably mostly use a few popular hosts, plugin writers will make sure that their plugins work in those hosts (if feasible) and host writers will try to support as many plugins as possible. I guess it depends on how creative (or how disciplined) LV2 programmers are. There is a good argument against having a large core specification; the larger it is, the harder it is to write hosts, and the fewer hosts will be written. --ll
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
