linuxaudio.org

On April 14, 2011 06:59:34 am you wrote:

quoted text
> On 13 April 2011 22:03, Tim E. Real  wrote:

> > I agree that if this new port were to be sandwiched among the others

> >  or if he were removing ports, that's breakage.

>

> I think that was the plan, though -- to put the new port after the

> other control ports and before any of the existing audio ones.  And

> that's the problem.

Oh I see. Not good. But doesn't audio come before controls?

I was in our code the other day and IIRC noticed audio came before controls.

(That's why I posted.)

Or is that simply how port ordering is /presented/ to me from LADSPA?

Hypothetically, if the new port really did come after ALL others, would

 that still break anything, including that LV2 bridge?

If MusE found some control ports followed by audio ports followed

 by more control ports, it would still cope fine.
Thanks for the enlightenment.

I'm learning (l)rdf and LV2 stuff now, with an eye towards LV2 support.

(I only recently learned what the 'L' stands for. Now it all makes sense -

 it's LADSPA all grown up.)
Tim E.
>

quoted text
> I like to disagree with David on most things LADSPA -- for example I

> think a host that uses the "unique" ID at all is broken from the

> outset, because there's no way to ensure that ID is actually unique,

> e.g. for plugin wrappers.  But in this case, and even though my own

> hosts should cope with Tim's change without problems, I have to agree

> that the change is not a good idea.

>

>

> Chris

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev