On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:58 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 15:26 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:39:30 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > I can make the plugin validating host check the latency primitively (eg > > > run a single sample through the buffer) and fail if it isn't reported > > > correctly, so we're sure the LADSPA latency woes are gone. > > > > What if it's a delay line? I think you have to reply on the concience of > > plugin programmers to get it right. > > we could require plugins that delay the signal but are not latent to > have the required port (which would report zero)
Hm, yeah, that would at least allow the verifier to check that plugins without a latency port aren't latent, which is nice (and that's the main problem anyway) -DR-