On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:27:56PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:24:03PM +0200, Lars Luthman wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 22:13 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 04:50:13 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > > I guess the port things aren't a good justification for the creation > > > > parameters, you're right. The question, then, is what is the > > > > recommended way for the host to provide functions to the plugin? That's > > > > what Lars was originally seeking (and solves the above allocation > > > > problem as well) > > > > > > I think that if it's provided as part of a HostFeature (so the plugin > > > knows it exists and what it's called) it can be obtained using the OS's > > > normal dynamic linking functions. I've not tried though. > > > > Do you mean that the plugin should dlopen the host? Wouldn't that > > require some way to pass the path to the host program to the plugin (in > > which case you might as well pass a function pointer directly)? > > I mean the linker should do it. If you dynamically build the plugin > against a stub library and the host exports something with the same ABI, I > /think/ the plugin should have the host's version of the function in its > namespace.
this is not TRUE on windows. otherwise yes. -- torben Hohn http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
