On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Paul Winkler wrote:
> The wasted space of "port-number" is trivial, it's the redundancy that
> bugs me. This is a nitpick.
I see what you mean. And I absolutely agree. How about "id" and "value".
There. Decided.
> It looks good. Paul Davis is right that we should identify the
I don't understand why this is necessary. It is specified in other
places. Read on.
> plugin. Furthermore I think there will need to be a way to identify
> different presets for the same plugin. This could either be an
I didn't specify this enough. The way it works in Ardour is that within
presets/ you use the ladspa_id to create the directory. So it would be
presets/1123/ for example. The different presets are seperated by being
held in different files. I was using the filename as the preset's name.
I'd add and trim the ".xml" behind the user's back. This method is nice
because if they reuse a preset name, it automatically overwrites the old
one (maybe a warning dialog would be a good idea).
> additional element of the xml data, or we could just expect different
> presets to be saved to different files. I suspect it might be useful
> to be able to store a collection of presets in one file.
I like this idea a little better. The file would be named ladspa_id.xml
and would live in presets/ directly. The only problem would be having to
handle duplicate names.
We still wouldn't need to specify the ladspa_id within the file though.
I'm not against it. It just seems redundent.
Taybin
