On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:24:55 +0100 ichthyo <p...@ichthyostega.de> wrote:
>>> On 17.1.2025 09:13+1 Kristian Amlie <krist...@amlie.name> wrote: >>>> 3. LV2 instance: Essentially the same scenario as scenario 2. >> On 17.01.2025 11:59, Will Godfrey wrote: >>> Yes, but with LV2, we always work in an 'internal' state mode and never use >>> any of the stored config/instance data, so we should probably block *all* >>> config updates for LV2 - although I don't know what we'd do about graphic >>> themes. > >On 17.01.25 17:44, Kristian Amlie wrote: >> Yes! I was going to suggest that too. > >This makes me feel queasy. >LV2 differs only in very few aspects from standalone. > >If I recall correct, we do load quite some config from the setup directory, >including screen layout, opened windows, and several further aspects. > >What we do right now is to block some config settings in the GUI for >any instance, that is not the "primary instance". Which is somewhat >problematic, >as the user has no direct way to influence the instance numbers with LV2 I stand corrected. I didn't realise is was doing that :( However, apart from the GUI stuff which it will write directly, I don't think it makes any attempt to save the config data. > and >it is even possible to close the first plugin instance and leave further ones >running. In which case there would be no way of altering some base settings >via UI. This bit has worried my for some time but only from the point of view of the first instance knowing there's nothing else running.:( >@Will: what do you mean with 'internal state mode'? The get and put commands. Nothing else uses them. _______________________________________________ Yoshimi-devel mailing list Yoshimi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/yoshimi-devel
