2009/7/6 Chris Cannam <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:01 AM, David Robillard<[email protected]> wrote: >> There are conflicts with the unique ID too, but there's no accounting >> for broken plugins I guess. > > Filename/label can be made to work; "unique" ID can't, for any dynamic > or automatically generated plugin library. > > Take dssi-vst for example. It consists of a single library that > publishes many LADSPA plugins, whose number and type are unknown until > run time. It can't map them onto a reserved range because it doesn't > know in advance what plugins it may have to wrap. It can't > realistically generate a good hashed value, because of the range > limitation given in the LADSPA header ("below 0x1000000") and the need > to avoid reserved ranges. It can't pass through the VST plugin's > existing numerical ID, because these are typically generated by > mapping from strings or hashing, and consequently are also usually out > of range, and anyway it can't know whether a LADSPA plugin of the same > ID already exists. > > I was sorely tempted to make it use the unique ID of 1 for every > plugin. I didn't, but the method it actually uses is really no better > in practice. > > I realise many on this list won't care about wrapping VSTs, but any > generated wrapper plugin (e.g. from Faust) will have the same problem. > > Never rely on the "unique" ID of a LADSPA plugin. > > (URIs are far better than either filename/label or numerical ID of course.)
/me quotes Chris entirely. Stefano _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
