mis-replied to gabriel only ..... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [LAD] minimal LV2 To: "Gabriel M. Beddingfield" <gabrbedd@xxxxxxxxx> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield <gabrbedd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> Can an LV2 extension redefine everything except the >> mimimum required for discovery ? This includes the >> way ports are described, the way the host is supposed >> to call the plugin etc. ? > > Pretty much, yes. Here's how: but given that the result would be: 1) a host that explicitly understood some alternative plugin API 2) a plugin that, other than its manfest.ttl file and accompanying .so file, was barely an LV2 plugin at all 3) more specifically, a plugin that would not run in the majority of LV2 hosts its difficult to see why you wouldn't simply define your own plugin API. the discovery process has to be one of the least interesting parts of LV2 (or any plugin API that i can think of) and co-opting it appears to me to save oneself almost no work at all. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
