On 16 November 2010 00:24, Chip VanDan <chip.vandan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15 November 2010 15:11, Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... >> LV2 represents some kind of version of the community's best-effort >> attempt to define a better plugin API. It is hard to explain why LV2 >> is so superior because its rooted in a feature that actually makes it >> quite annoying for anyone who isn't instantly convinced that endless >> extensibility is the right goal. But it allows for more or less >> anything, assuming that both parties (the plugin and the host) can >> agree on it. > > I followed you up to this paragraph. LADSPA started it, DSSI improved > on it, and LV2 tried to be the end-all-be-all (the final solution) if > I'm understanding correctly. Oh, and VAMP is sort of a side-show > freak. But can you explain what you mean here, "assuming that both > parties can agree on it"? > I think that the LV2 site http://lv2plug.in/ explains this point : "LV2 is not limited to the features built in to the "core" specification. Instead, extensions to LV2 can be defined independently and used by hosts and plugins." A plugin writer can add capabilities, but if the host doesn't recognise them, they will not be used by that host. Fritz _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
