On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:26 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > i guess part of the irritation around (and possibly delayed endorsement > as compared to LADSPA) of lv2 stems from those "extensions". > > from a design standpoint, i totally agree with all your points, and what > little i've so far grokked of lv2 looks very nice indeed. *but*: it's a > moving target, and few host authors have committed themselves to > implement those extensions. > > the problem i see: the extensions mentioned on the lv2 website are of > very different maturity, it's absolutely not clear which of those should > be considered "canonical" and hence a *must-implement* feature, nor has > there been any public discussion about any canonical set of core > extensions (excuse that weird expression, but i can't think of anything > better).
This is a problem with the site, not the tech/spec. I very much agree the site needs work. We need to install a CMS and have a more community driven site etc. Anyone who wants to help out with this, please do... I have been working on automatic documentation generation for specifications to address part of this problem. This page is generated automatically from the port groups schema, for example: http://lv2plug.in/ns/dev/port-groups.lv2/port-groups.html > crooked analogy alert... as it is now, lv2 resembles XML: you can do > anything in principle, but there is almost no common semantics. we > should move it to XHTML: define a set of mandatory extensions "mandatory" in this top-down dictatorial sense is not useful. Plugins or hosts can make things mandatory if they want. > that > everybody can expect to work pretty much everywhere (to the extent that > it makes sense - i understand a synth host might have different > priorities than, say, ardour) Exactly. If some things don't work, then they inherently don't work. It would be no different if the various features were all defined in a single spec. There is no problem with things not working. Hosts that don't support e.g. dynamic polyphony .... well, don't support dynamic polyphony. A well-written plugin gracefully degrades anyway, most extensions make this possible. Cheers, -dr _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
