On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 19:59 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:23 +0200, Leonard "paniq" Ritter wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:46 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > Plugins must be able to refuse hosts and hosts must be able to refuse > > > plugins. It's the only way to allow extensions. I _guarantee_ plugins > > > will exist that some hosts just don't want (they already do with > > > LADSPA1), and some plugins will exists that require features hosts are > > > not required to provide. This is a Good Thing. > > > > maybe in a Perfect World. in practice, we are going to face irritations > > when plugins demand weird non-unified URIs to be passed in order to run > > at all. from what i see, no new URIs can be invented without requiring > > immediate support in all available hosts > > Where did you get this crazy idea? The whole point is that different > hosts can provide different features.
i agree. but i suppose this is a misunderstanding. why do you think it is a crazy idea? > > > and plugins that initially > > only work for one host are not that cool. ergo, the "feature" of > > blocking instantiation for a host not passing a required URI will be > > rarely used, for the simple reason that it might not work with all > > hosts. thus, do not allow it by spec. > > You want to impose plugins work on the lowest common denominator of > hosts. Basically this amounts to mandating that certain plugins simply > can not exist. Why would you want to do that? no i do not want to do that. this is a misunderstanding. please explain how you got this impression. > > > i hope this is taken care of! the new header suggests replacement, not > > complementation. > > The fact that you even considered that someone would really do this is > frightening. Not an issue ;) i have seen things you humans will never understand. > > If you think the header should be all the documentation required, then > you completely Don't Get It on a fundamental level. Read the example > plugin - all of it. i was able to implement a working ladspa host implementation only from the header, and that was a good experience. i would like it if it could stay that way. a tiny reference to an additional document that should be read in the header would also be cool. not mentioning required literature is unfriendly ;) -- -- leonard "paniq" ritter -- http://www.mjoo.org -- http://www.paniq.org
