2007/11/8, Krzysztof Foltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Nedko Arnaudov wrote: > > > I dont think such leveling can be defined. For example custom and generic > > GUIs are at same level. Maybe there could be feature (extension) > > sets. They may need to be defined in ttl file too. > > I only mean, level 3 host must support the custom GUIs if plugin has > them - it was thought to be a kind of incentive for host makers to > implement the most crucial features in order to get bragging rights :) > > There will be less hosts than plugins, so it is important that host > makers get it right in the first place. Then, users would drive plugin > authors to start making use of "high level" spec features (like, custom > GUI or MIDI ports). They would basically bitch and moan until plugin > devs start showing parameters in Hertz instead of arbitrary units, until > everything has GUIs, until parameters are handled in sample-accurate way > etc.
Damn users ;-P > That was my experience from Buzz community at least. Users were pushing > devs to add more and more advanced features (and devs were pushing > oskari to add more advanced features in Buzz machine spec). Of course, > what worked there doesn't have to work in open source community. But it > might be worth trying. I repeat, I have nothing to do with LV2, but I guess that's what extensions are for: "modularize" support for new features. > > Unfortunately, I doubt test suite will happen at all. I think it will be > > more like, plugin A version "n" is known to work well in host B, vesrion > > "m". > > Which is a kind of hell for end users, isn't it? :) Yep. > From user perspective, either everything should fully work everywhere > (at least to some degree), or determining compatibility should be as > simple as possible (ie. plugin says level 3 and host says level 4 - so > the plugin will work well in that host). Musicians aren't necessarily > technically-minded, and some stuff, even simple to us, may simply scare > them off, just because it *seems* complex :) Damn users again :-) > Test suite must happen at some point - I might do some work for that > too. It doesn't have to be something big, in simplest case it would just > be a set of short programs/plugins full of asserts :) Cool. That's what I'm doing too in my project, I'm using debug mode-only assertions in all functions against input and return values (much like design by contract). The difference here is that LV2 is "just a specification", while my library is an implementation, so a test suite would be actually fine. > > Also testing imposes kind of certification, i.e. work that IMHO > > should be done by packager. see below... > > Certification is the possible next step, but not a requirement. The test > suite is basically designed to help devs write correct code, not to > force them to do so. Encouraging them to do so is more of reputation > thing (if someone writes buggy plugins, he will be complained to on > mailing lists, irc channels, and his work won't be included in > distributions etc). > > I think whether it will be open or closed source is irrelevant - the > main goal of the compliance level is a helpful, structured development > process, where: > > 1) compliance bugs are caught before the plugin is released, eliminating > the problem of buggy plugins in circulation (unless the developers don't > use the test suite at all, but then it's either their bad decision that > will cost them reputation or bad test suite that will cost me reputation) True :-) > 2) host authors are encouraged to add features in a predictable order > (they can always add level 4 features without level 2, but then they > can't brag about level 2 compliance) I'm not sure... do all GUI-supporting hosts have to support rt-safe allocation as well? In such case they would support level 4, but not level 2 as you said... but what would happen? I think in such case those levels wouldn't serve their purpose of being more or less respected and accepted in practice. > 3) when - say - 100% of hosts support level 1, 50% of hosts support > level 2 and 25% of hosts support level 3, the plugin authors would first > want to make use of level 2 additions, then level 3 additions etc - > basically, concentrate on this kind of work that makes the most of end > users happy with them (as in: what's the point of doing level 4 > additions when no host does level 4 - except for doing it for fun) If and only if this "levelization" is accepted. > Of course, I'm not saying the model would always be used - just it would > be the expected case the audio scene could (hopefully) slowly converge to. I think this is more realistic, but such thing has to be carefully thought. Stefano _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
