Re: [LAD] engine, validation, ui separation,

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: James Morris <jwm.art.net@...>
Cc: Linux Audio Developers <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Friday, March 4, 2011 - 11:54 am

2011/3/4 James Morris :

The current LV2 spec says that the plugin's "engine" should validate
its inputs anyway... IIRC, there is a draft/experimental extension
that allows the host to specify that it will take care of that, but I
haven't seen it used yet (and probably it should be that way until it
gets "serious enough").

However, I have no idea whether how much performance gain you would
obtain from that and/or if it allows to do stuff that you can't do
now.

In my (admittedly limited) experience in developing LV2 plugins, it
shouldn't be much of a problem.

Stefano
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] engine, validation, ui separation,, James Morris, (Fri Mar 4, 11:30 am)
Re: [LAD] engine, validation, ui separation,, David Robillard, (Fri Mar 4, 6:57 pm)
Re: [LAD] engine, validation, ui separation,, Stefano D'Angelo, (Fri Mar 4, 11:54 am)
Re: [LAD] engine, validation, ui separation,, Arnold Krille, (Fri Mar 4, 11:53 am)
Re: [LAD] engine, validation, ui separation,, Paul Davis, (Fri Mar 4, 11:33 am)
Re: [LAD] engine, validation, ui separation,, James Morris, (Fri Mar 4, 11:53 am)
Re: [LAD] engine, validation, ui separation,, David Robillard, (Fri Mar 4, 7:17 pm)