On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:06:26PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 17:30 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 02:26:57PM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote: > > > Referencing: > > > There needs to be a safe way to reference plugins and their ports. > > > Portnames make for human readable patch files, but this doesn't > > > work with i18n, when Attack becomes Einschwingzeit ;) > > > > Plugins have URIs! And ports have uniqe identifying numbers within the > > plugin. We could assign URIs to ports too, but I think thats going too > > far. > > I'm not going to suggest ID numbers go away, but I do think ports should > have a uniquely identifying string label. Primary reason being OSC > control, and using plugins in language bindings (ie python) - both > things that are getting much more prevalent now than when LADSPA first > arrived.
OK, that's an argument I could buy. i'm still not completly convinced, but it does make some sense. > Noone wants to set the frequency of an oscillator with the OSC message > "/set oscillator/4 440" when they could "/set oscillator/freq 440". Or > plugin.port(4).set_value(440) when it could be > plugin.port("frequency").set_value(440). Code (or OSC messages) using > plugin indexes as IDs is completely unreadable. > > This is actually very important to me, I would very much like unique > port string ID's for the above reasons unless there's a good reason > there can't be. I guess you mean unique in plugin scope? It would also have to have some restriction on what values it could take, eg. [a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_]+ some kind of lowest common denominator between symbols for various languages would make sense. - Steve