On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 11:25, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:14:02AM +0100, Jan Weil wrote: > > > Well, since these are _hints_ I'd suggest to just ignore > > LADSPA_HINT_SWITCHED in this case. Otherwise a simpler minded host > > (applyplugin) might let you use this plugin without problems while your > > sophisticated pro app refuses to touch it. > > > > Or is this what you'd expect? > > I have no problem with a host rejecting a plugin that violates the > interface spec. I expect them to this, actually.
Please try to look at it from a user's POV. Imagine the following post to ardour-users: Hi list, I've been using my favourite LADSPA plugin AudioTwingTwang in Sweep 0.8.2 for a long time. I have to admit it's UI looks a little odd but I really love this effect. Now I'm trying to record some of my music which no longer fits into my computer's RAM so I was considering Ardour but - alas - Ardour's LADSPA support is not as good as I had expected. Whenever I try to load AudioTwingTwang Ardour says something about a 'violated interface spec'. So I'm sorry to say that but I'm very disappointed. I'll go back to Sweep for now. Bye, X Why should Mr./Mrs. X be bothered with LADSPA's awkward evolution on LAD? Reminds me of ESR's problems while configuring CUPS. Not every plugin coder uses demolition just take a look at http://www.eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0158.html Jan
