linuxaudio.org

[Philipp =DCberbacher]
>Excerpts from Stefano D'Angelo's message of 2011-03-28 22:59:46 +0200:

quoted text
>>=20

>> This means, if you change the port signature and maintain the same

>> UniqueID, we would have incompatibilities in the LV2 world. If you

>> create a new plugin or don't touch ports, instead, everything's fine.

>>=20

>> Stefano

>

>I'd say you'd even have incompatibilities in LADSPA world. Even fixes in

>LADSPA plugins would sometimes need a new ID (This was discussed a while

>ago regarding a LADSPA that has an unintuitive port order).

Lacking sufficient knowledge of all the LADSPA hosts out there, I'm=20

unable to judge how many will cope with the addition of a port to an=20

existing plugin and how many will not.
However, I'd expect any host on whose design reasonably deep thought=20

has been expended to simply use the new plugin in place of the=20

previous one, with the the new port set to its default value.  In this=20

case the plugin will operate exactly the same way the old version did.
(For what it's worth, ladspa.h does not mandate that a plugins' port=20

signature never changes.)
It is very unfortunate that such a change might break the way your=20

bridge code works, Stefano, and I would like to apologise in advance. =20

(If the addition of a 'version' symbol exported by caps.so is any=20

help, I'll be happy to add that.)
Cheers, Tim