On 8 Jun 2008, at 12:51, Stefano D'Angelo wrote: > 2008/6/8 Steve Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On 8 Jun 2008, at 02:31, Stefano D'Angelo wrote: >>> >>> /* This function shall create a temporary file containing the >>> dynamically >>> * generated manifest.ttl-like file and return a FILE pointer or >>> NULL in >>> case >>> * of failure. >>> * >>> * The generated file must not implement DynManifest classes. */ >>> FILE * lv2_dyn_manifest(); >> >> Seems like a solid proposal. I'm not familiar enough with the >> extension >> mechanism to know if you need some extra stuff to define the >> extension URI >> and so, but the idea seems solid. >> >> One comment, it will be difficult for the plugin to know when it >> can clean >> up the file. Obviously on UNIXy systems you can unlink it after >> returning >> the FILE * to the host, and let the filesystem garbage collect it >> later, but >> I don't think you can do that on Windows. >> >> Maybe it would be a good idea to provide a lv2_dyn_manifest_done() >> function >> or similar, so that windows-based plugins can clean up their >> temporary >> files? > > Agreed. > > Anyway I forgot to mention a couple of things: > > 1. A DynManifest is not a Plugin; Plugins and DynManifests can be > found inside the same bundle's manifest.ttl file (which is maybe kind > of lame?)
Nope, there's no reason to say where the declaration appears, you can link in more RDF files with rdfs:seeAlso if you with to, which is somewhat like #include. > 2. I don't really understand how does the :binary property exactly > works. I see the LV2 spec does not define it, but it is referenced > inside manifest.ttl files as lv2:binary. Is that some kind of property > belonging to some base class or...? And what if it is not present? It has to be present, otherwise there's no plugin. > 3. The binary property in the generated file should probably refer to > the same binary .so file containing lv2_dyn_manifest* (opening other > APIs' plugins should be done in lv2_dyn_manifest* itself IMO to avoid > inconsistencies). The binary that contains the lv2_dyn_manifest* stuff should be the same one as contains the run() IMHO. > 4. What about multiple DynManifests in the bundle's manifest.ttl file? > In case they refer to the same binary, should lv2_dyn_manifest_*() > functions be called in the original order for lv2_dyn_manifest() and > reverse order for lv2_dyn_manifest_done() (static data would do some > trick in this case; this simplifies my own work somehow - modular > wrapper - but maybe it's not that beautfiul)? Can you think of a reason to have more than one? If not I'd say just say that there has to be one. It's simpler. BTW, you get no implicit ordering in RDF (it's a graph language), so if you want to order things you have to number them in some way. - Steve _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
