On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:43 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote: > On 18 April 2011 15:50, David Robillard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 19:16 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote: > >> Library name plus label, for example. > > > > That is not guaranteed to be unique, and I know of at least one case in > > practise where it isn't (various blop packages have a different library > > name). There's no reason whatsoever the library name and label of > > various LADSPA plugin distributions can't be completely different, > > neither one is an ID. > > Indeed, but at least the typical failure case (when the library name > differs from the expected one) is that the plugin isn't loaded and the > program can report it, rather than that the wrong plugin is loaded > silently as occurs with the numerical ID.
Well, sure, a broken ID is... well, broken. It's not something you can work around by using an even more broken non-ID. There's no reason someone couldn't do the same thing with library name and label. > > Perhaps the LADSPA spec /should/ use that (or whatever else) as an > > identifier, but it doesn't. > > As Stefano pointed out, it does in fact say "plugin types should be > identified by file and label". I admit the text is strange given the > presence of the ID as well. > > > file name + label would be a really annoying two-piece identifier > > anyway, even if it was an actual global identifer. > > So make a pseudo URI or something out of it. > > Anyway, the situation is a bit unsatisfactory either way and I don't > think we disagree on that -- probably not much point in arguing about > the details these days. A proper URI is a better option in any > circumstance. Indeed. -dr _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
