On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 08:36:24AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > well, it appears that there is little to no response to the proposal > from the LADSPA meeting at ZKM. just to be sure that the silence is an > accurate reflection of what people think, i want to take a harsh > stance on the proposal and see if it generates any response... > > if we follow through with the proposal, LADSPA will no longer be a > header file. it will require the use of a library. the actual struct > in the header file will contain the absolute bare minimum information > required to actually run a plugin, nothing more. No port names, no > hints, no default values. we will try to make the library > self-contained, dependency-free, but it will still be more complex > than the current model. > > moreover, there will be 2 versions of LADSPA floating around, thus > leading to problems with host/plugin compatibility issues.
there will be LADSPA and LADSPA2. i dont see what the problem would be ? we should make sure that the v2plugin metadata contains a hint which v1 plugin is made obsolete by this v2plugin, so that i can have ladspa 1 and 2 support in the host without the user seeing the same plugin 2 times. > personally, i think its worth going through this pain. we will end up > with a system in which new LADSPA extensions do not require changes to > the API, which is a great thing. but it will be painful to get there, > and i want to check that people don't mind doing it. votes++ metadata is metadata. -- torben Hohn http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
