On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 17:22 +0000, Steve Harris wrote: > On 29 Jan 2007, at 16:51, Florian Schmidt wrote: > > > On Monday 29 January 2007 09:08, Steve Harris wrote: > > > >> Ah, well the host is not supposed to change port values during run() > >> anyway, the idea in LADSPA (and LV2) is that the host should chop the > >> run() block where port values change. In practice not all hosts do > >> that, some just pick a suitably small block size, eg. 32 frames and > >> quantise the changes to that rate. > > > > Hi, let me chime in because it kidna fits into the subject. > > > > I have defined two (very very simple LV2 extensions): > > > > "The extension’s URI is > > http://tapas.affenbande.org/lv2/ext/fixed-buffersize > > > > All that a plugin needs to check is whether a host feature with > > this URI > > exists and the data will be a uint32 containing the buffersize. > > > > The host is only allowed to call the plugin’s run function with a > > buffersize > > equal to the one specified by the host feature. > > There’s a second extension: > > > > http://tapas.affenbande.org/lv2/ext/power-of-two-buffersize > > > > which is identical to above but with the additional requirement > > that the fixed > > buffersize has to be a power of two." > > Great idea. I've got some plugins that will benefit a lot by this. We > should link to known extensions on the http://lv2plug.in/ site. > > FWIW, my provisional plan was to wait until it seemed like time for a > LV2 1.1 (hopefully not too soon :), then roll all the "popular" > extensions into that. > It doesn't make a huge amount of difference whether their included or > not though. > > Before you ask, no I don't have a definition for "popular".
I think it might be a better idea to reserve some URI prefix (http://lv2plug/extensions ?) for "popular" extensions and keep the spec itself simple, just for the sake of having a simple understandable core spec regardless of how the more fancy things evolve. Thoughts? -DR-
