On 7 Jul 2009, at 12:48, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Steve Harris<[email protected]> > wrote: >> But, what about, from now on, all LADSPA labels should be the plugin >> URI (only restriction is non whitespace, fine) > > Nice in theory, though one problem with my preference for using > filename/label is that it offers more scope for weird programmer > foibles. The only restriction in the spec may be "no whitespace", but > I expect hosts may have other peculiarities. I haven't checked but I > wouldn't be surprised if some of my own code breaks if certain > characters are found in the label ('"', ':', '<', '>', '&' spring to > mind as possible candidates). And let's just wait for the first > security advisory for a buffer overflow in LADSPA plugin label > handling...
Sure, that would actually be a bug though. >> Will break any hosts the check to see if the UID is in the legitimate >> range of course. > > ... though that said, people do dumb things with numbers too > sometimes. I have seen code that tried to store LADSPA plugin IDs in > floats (!) thus ending up with rounding error for large ID values. > (Not my code, honest.) Heh. - Steve _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
