On 03/28/2011 11:27 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Stefano D'Angelo's message of 2011-03-28 22:59:46 +0200: >> 2011/3/28 Tim Goetze <[email protected]>: >>>>> I'm planning to add a mode switch (low- or bandpass) to the AutoWah >>>>> instead of making a separate new plugin, or would that be a stupid >>>>> idea? >>>> For compatibility with LV2, it's better if you create a new plugin for >>>> that... >>> I don't see how compatibility with LV2 is a concern here? >> Heh... long story short: LV2 uses URIs, LADSPA uses UniqueIDs (not >> necessarily but...), two LV2 plugins with same URI are required to >> have the same "port signature" (i.e., ports) and I wrote a LADSPA to >> LV2 bridge where the URIs of the bridged plugins are in the form >> urn:ladspa:xxxx, where xxxx is the UniqueID. >> >> This means, if you change the port signature and maintain the same >> UniqueID, we would have incompatibilities in the LV2 world. If you >> create a new plugin or don't touch ports, instead, everything's fine. >> >> Stefano > > I'd say you'd even have incompatibilities in LADSPA world. Even fixes in > LADSPA plugins would sometimes need a new ID (This was discussed a while > ago regarding a LADSPA that has an unintuitive port order).
Sorry guys but I don't follow you here. Can't you add or remove ports to an existing plugin in a new release? Does LV2 considers that two plugins with the same URI but different ports are actually different plugins? As for two C++ functions with the same name but different arguments? -- Olivier _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
