[Devel] Extension URI vs extension prefix (a compatibility vs nuisance decision)

[David Robillard]

On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 08:44 +0100, Bent Bisballe Nyeng wrote:
> Hi David and others
> 
> Making a general design decision like is is a good thing and I agree
> that the hash should always be part of the extension URI.
> 
> I think many LV2 plugins implementations use local copies of the
> extension header files instead of relying on the distros to include them
> (gentoo portage doesn't supply the ones I personally use at the time of
> writing).
> Therefore the problem of compatibility breakage is not that great since
> it will not occur until a manual header file update is performed.
> 
> However; since the change will not render compile-time errors it might
> cause some serious headaches in those cases where they do apply.
> 
> Would it be an idea to not only append the # to the URI define but also
> change the name of it in order to make sure that the compiler will
> report the error?

Yeah, that would be the best way to go about it.  Compile errors are
easy to deal with.

I'm sure those strings are probably lingering here and there as well,
but that shouldn't be very common...

I am generally feeling more in the mood to make things better and apply
lessons learned rather than keep them stagnant for the benefit of dead
projects :)

-dr