On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 05:12:56PM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > I'm just afraid that it might end up as a pretty much app specific > thing, similar to MESS and RHSP.
That would be perfectly OK for me. I'm not after popularity, and I'm writing these things in the first place for myself. > What's the point of a plugin API > 'standard' when there's a single host supporting the thing? Apart from the host(s) I'll provide (one of which is an app on its own, the other a pure plugin host) that would probably be the case anyway. Actually, for a host author implementing this standard directly would be easier than trying to squeeze it into an existing LV2 framework - some things are quite different. > It doesn't help plugin developers either if they have to > chose between 5-7 plugin APIs, knowing that, whatever they > chose, only a, often tiny, subset of programs will be able > to load the plugin. That again is not something that keeps me awake at night. In fact it would provide a form of natural selection. The main point of this series of plugins will be *quality*. I'm not really waiting to see the N-th 'I-dont-understand-it- but-copied-it-from-some-textbook' algorithm being added to it. There are already enough of those, and that in itself is a good reason for not wanting to be associated with existing standards. Ciao, -- Je veux que la mort me trouve plantant mes choux, mais nonchalant d’elle, et encore plus de mon jardin imparfait. (Michel de Montaigne) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
