On 10/30/2018 09:36 AM, Hermann Meyer wrote:
>
> Am 30.10.18 um 08:37 schrieb Hermann Meyer:
>>
>>
>> Am 29.10.18 um 15:34 schrieb Robin Gareus:
The plugins already loaded into memory should still hopefully be OK.
>>> yep.
>>>
>>> On Unix systems already loaded .so will be kept in memory. On
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:02:36 -0400
Tim wrote:
>But beyond that there is something else:
>The actual sound of the plugin. When users dig up an old song project
> they expect plugins that were used to a) be available and b) sound
> and operate exactly like they did before, barring minor
On 10/30/2018 01:09 AM, Hermann Meyer wrote:
Am 29.10.18 um 15:34 schrieb Robin Gareus:
On 10/29/2018 12:40 AM, Hermann Meyer wrote:
Downside of cached information is, that it could clash on plugin load
when the plugin have changed it's ports (updated).
If that happens you have a much
Am 30.10.18 um 08:37 schrieb Hermann Meyer:
Am 29.10.18 um 15:34 schrieb Robin Gareus:
The plugins already loaded into memory should still hopefully be OK.
yep.
On Unix systems already loaded .so will be kept in memory. On Windows
you cannot write/replace to a file that is currently
Am 29.10.18 um 15:34 schrieb Robin Gareus:
The plugins already loaded into memory should still hopefully be OK.
yep.
On Unix systems already loaded .so will be kept in memory. On Windows
you cannot write/replace to a file that is currently opened.
You can skip and postpone scanning of
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:34:44 +0100, Robin Gareus wrote:
>Why? I've never seen someone installing/removing software while
>recording or mixing. It also sounds like a bad idea to me.
I agree that it is a bad idea, but decided yesterday not to reply to
this thread and mention that it is a bad idea,
