On 23 Jan 2008, at 10:10, Krzysztof Foltman wrote: > Steve Harris wrote: > >> To my mind it's better for us to develop a large suite of tools >> and plugins to demonstrate the viability and advantages before we go > > I think we indeed need lots of testing tools - like debugging hosts/ > plugins spiked with lots of pre/postcondition checks, or even some > validity checking libraries that could be easily inserted > (#ifdef'ed) into "real" hosts/plugins, to check plugin/host > behaviour in "real world". > > I recall what incomplete/buggy standard implementations did in Buzz > and VST worlds, and it'd be nice to have some tools to prevent > repeating the same nightmare. > > As for "who will write it", I guess it can't be a single-person > project, because just one person is unlikely to come up with *all* > the useful checks (and it would be incredibly boring anyway).
Hah, you're right, though there are some people who have a knack for, and get a kick out of writing conformance tools. Like Nick Lamb, who wrote Demolition for LADSPA: http://devel.tlrmx.org/audio/demolition/ I don't think anyone ever wrote a set up conformance plugins for LADSPA that measured host conformance though - that would also be useful. - Steve _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
