> > I suppose it could. Though why is far beyond me... what's your point? > >> Such an extension would effectively embed a completely new >> plugin standard into LV2, leaving only the plugin discovery >> and packaging mechanism. > > ... and? > >> Supporting it would be no more complex than supporting e.g. >> both dynparams and port groups, so there's no technical >> rationale for refusing such an extension. There could be an >> ideological one of course. But if that is enough to refuse an >> extension, then ideological attacks on LV2 are legitimate as >> well. > > I don't know where you're getting this "accept" and "refuse" nonsense, > as if there's some LV2 cabal that has to approve everything you do. > This is pretty much completely contrary to the entire point. You want > to attack LV2 by constructing an extension that would be "refused" by > authority? What? The whole point is that this can't happen (though you > yourself have advocated several times that it SHOULD be monolithic and > authoritarian so this kind of crap could happen, so I don't know how you > can possibly try and use this argument now). > > Once again, Fons, you criticize what you clearly do not understand, > based on arguments that are pretty much entirely based on said ignorance > (and blatantly in contradiction with others you've made in the past). > Why? > > -dr > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev >
I'm pretty sure Fons is occasionally a very smart and effective troll ;) As a gedankenexperiment what are the problems in LV2 that make it ineffective or even inelegant for implementing something like Jconv i.e a wrapper on your very lovely zita-convolver? How should these be solved? Loki _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
