Is is true, that removing this workaround, stops the setNonRealtime(…) in current WaveLab 8.5 Windows.
So what was the reason to remove the workaround, is there a better method for WaveLab now?
And if there was no reason, why removing this workaround?
The big problem is, costumers relying on the behavior, now it just stop working
So if wavelab doesn’t report the offline mode properly, did someone tell the WaveLab developers in the last years, to fix this? Someone?
Check the discussion about that here and also here
tl;dr: it is a poor way to detect non-realtime processing, it also leads to wrong detection in other hosts (SONAR is sure one of them) and should be avoided in my opinion.
If compatibility with WaveLab is an issue, then restricting that patch ONLY to WaveLab on Windows is a must, in order not to mess with other hosts that support the VST protocol way to report non-realtime processing properly
EDIT: also, adding a specific ‘if’ that checks the host to which the workaround applies, leaves a very useful trace in the code of the host for which the workaround is necessary. It is a nice thing to have when looking back at old code to understand why it was put there. (aside from, obviously, proper documentation with comments)
I recommend if somebody finds a bug or misbehavior in a plugin host, please TALK to the developers of the host. Most of them are nice people! There is a real chance to get rid of the workarounds.
Locating it in the git repo seems like a more sensible idea, so it is possible to track its history easily and relate it with fixes/workarounds in JUCE.
Also, I’d avoid letting it be a public document where everyone can collaborate, it’s too high the risk that this will transform it into a makeshift (and poor) bug reporting system: what one sees as one particular host’s quirk, could in reality be a JUCE bug and vice-versa.
I’d start by putting in it the remarks on various hosts and formats that have been added at the bottom of the multibus guide post: that seems to me like the perfect style for that document to have
@fabian, @yfede, @chkn: sorry, can you post there again or copy there? That way we can follow that discussion and maybe it will become true… hopefully…