[Devel] Fwd: [RFC] URID extension

Gabriel M. Beddingfield gabrbedd at gmail.com
Fri Jul 22 14:36:46 PDT 2011

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, David Robillard wrote:

> On a related note:
> The real sticking point here is the event extension.  URI map doesn't
> actually *have* to go, but might as well do it cleanly to eliminate
> confusion (at the cost of temporary hassle).

uri-map can be implemented by urid.  In every uri-map 
implementation I've seen, this will be no big deal at all... 
because they're returning static values.

> My vision for this is basically the existing "atom" extension with a few
> minor additions to make it take on the former job of the event extension
> as well:

Is this the same as http://lv2plug.in/ns/ext/atom in SVN? 
If so, I'll inspect that before making any comments.

I noticed that it also has a uint16_t `type`.  Didn't you 
point to this as the major failing of the Event extension?

> Simple silly question: any opinions on the name for this?  Is "atom"
> good?  "Object" would seem natural as well, but it clashes with RDF
> "object".  "Blob" implies complete untypedness which is undesirable.

FWIW, in X11 what they call "Atom" is more or less what LV2 
calls "urid" or "uri-map."


More information about the Devel mailing list