On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 21:37 +0300, Sampo Savolainen wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:58 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 15:26 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:39:30 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > > I can make the plugin validating host check the latency primitively (eg > > > > run a single sample through the buffer) and fail if it isn't reported > > > > correctly, so we're sure the LADSPA latency woes are gone. > > > > > > What if it's a delay line? I think you have to reply on the concience of > > > plugin programmers to get it right. > > > > we could require plugins that delay the signal but are not latent to > > have the required port (which would report zero) > > Still a bit hackish for my tastes. The plugin reporting it's latency all > by it self is the-right-thing-to-do (tm). If hosts need to measure the > latency, it gets hairy. The hosts would need to take measurements every > time a plugin parameter changes, etc.. > > Let's just standardize an extension for latency ports after the release > of LV2. And let's do it FAST, so that most plugin writers will be > porting their plugins with the extension in place.
I think this should be included in the spec, since it's devastating when plugins don't adhere. I believe Steve agrees with me (Steve?) -DR-
