On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 16:03 +0100, Nick Dowell wrote:
Good idea.
reverse - domain name type addresses are used quite widely now, in Java
for example and in all apple's latest stuff.
eg uk.org.plugin.analogueOsc
Can we have a unique divider between the domain and product?
[EMAIL
@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA Issues
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 16:03 +0100, Nick Dowell wrote:
Good idea.
reverse - domain name type addresses are used quite widely now, in Java
for example and in all apple's latest stuff.
eg uk.org.plugin.analogueOsc
Can we have
Good idea.
reverse - domain name type addresses are used quite widely now, in Java
for example and in all apple's latest stuff.
eg uk.org.plugin.analogueOsc
combined with a version number, you can correctly identify plugins no
matter their filename..
-n
On 20 May 2005, at 14:19, Steve
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:16:43 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 09:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
So why wasn't the unique ID the thing to use?
Because it's impossible to find any way to guarantee it's actually
unique, for example in the case of a wrapper plugin that
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:19:58 +0100, Mike Rawes wrote:
So why wasn't the unique ID the thing to use? There is a unique plugin
ID in LADSPA, if not for this then for what reason?
Going by what is said on ladspa.org, I think that it was originally intended
to
be the way to refer to
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 03:19:50 +1000, Dave Robillard wrote:
(I still think the central repository is a good idea anyway, FWIW)
So do I, but its a hell of a lot of effort, and its unlikly to be kept
up to date.
In the commercial world (of one application I develop for anyway) a number
of
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 11:03 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 03:19:50 +1000, Dave Robillard wrote:
(I still think the central repository is a good idea anyway, FWIW)
So do I, but its a hell of a lot of effort, and its unlikly to be kept
up to date.
In the
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 01:31:16 +0100, Simon Jenkins wrote:
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 11:03 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 03:19:50 +1000, Dave Robillard wrote:
(I still think the central repository is a good idea anyway, FWIW)
So do I, but its a hell of a lot of
Hi all,
A while ago I started a thread about the proper way to refer to LADSPA
plugins (in save files or whatever) and the consensus was library
filename + label.
People have been having problems with library name - different packages
seem to make different names for the libraries (prefixing
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 09:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
So why wasn't the unique ID the thing to use?
Because it's impossible to find any way to guarantee it's actually
unique, for example in the case of a wrapper plugin that generates
plugins on the fly. ladspa-vst / dssi-vst are obvious
--- Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
A while ago I started a thread about the proper way to refer to LADSPA
plugins (in save files or whatever) and the consensus was library
filename + label.
People have been having problems with library name - different packages
seem to
On Wed, 2005-18-05 at 10:16 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 09:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
So why wasn't the unique ID the thing to use?
Because it's impossible to find any way to guarantee it's actually
unique, for example in the case of a wrapper plugin that generates
12 matches
Mail list logo
