Re: auval and you
Re: auval and you
- Subject: Re: auval and you
- From: William Stewart <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:23:54 -0700
On 21/03/2007, at 3:30 PM, Adam Schabtach wrote:
So even if Apple isn't forcing developers to make AUs pass
validation, the users do so out of a misguided association
between implementation-validity and overall code stability.
Also, many users still don't even know about the AU
Validation control panel in Logic, and don't have much
understanding of it.
Our experience bears up these assertions. Even some fairly
experienced and
sophisticated users do not understand the relationship between
auval and
Logic, how the latter depends upon the former, nor that Logic can
be told to
override the rejection of an AU by auval. The extent of their
understanding
is "it doesn't show up in Logic." That's all.
So, regardless of the pros and cons of auval, it is a truism that
changing
auval can have repercussions that end-users do not understand. When an
end-user doesn't understand why their plug-in suddenly doesn't load in
Logic, they complain to the maker of the plug-in, not to Apple.
Hmm - well, my response in this case would be that they are actually
complaining to the right person then :-) -- auval has detected a
legitimate and potentially serious problem with your audio unit.
This is why we seed auval as early as we can, so that there is a
chance for developers to have fixes available for their customers
***before*** these customers have to deal with this situation. This
is also why we actually disabled some of the tests that we know fail
3rd party AUs for tiger systems; its not that those problems aren't
there!, but rather we were concerned about the disruption this can
cause to users. We are trying to take these situations into account,
and we are certainly listening to the concerns you are expressing.
One of the things that can really help us to make sure we do this as
well as possible is for developers to actually test their audio units
with the seeds we provide. Too often this is not the case. In the
testing we did before releasing 10.4.9 we actually found a number of
failure cases in audio units from developers that were seeded (and we
sent emails to them) - the only conclusion I can draw from this is
that auval was not being used in their testing. We had also given
notice some months previously, that we would be releasing an update
to auval for Tiger and would like to get feedback from developers
before we do so. We heard from a couple of people only, so we can
only assume "no news is good news".
Bill
--Adam
--
Adam Schabtach
Audio Damage, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
--
mailto:email@hidden
tel: +1 408 974 4056
________________________________________________________________________
__
"Much human ingenuity has gone into finding the ultimate Before.
The current state of knowledge can be summarized thus:
In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded" - Terry Pratchett
________________________________________________________________________
__
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden