[gmpi] Re: 3.11 topic: Dynamic plugin structure

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Mike Berry wrote:
> 
> - Plugin has 3 parameters. The user creates some automation for them.
> - The user switch the parameter list, so that now there are 4 
> parameters, where the first 2 have the same characteristics as before 
> the change, and the second 2 are completely new.

>       The user may well expect for the automation from the first two 
> parameters be preserved. But this can get rather nasty from the host 
> point of view. We have no concept of "orphan" automation tracks, as 
> Sonar apparently does, and adding it would be a major feature. And I can 
> see some reattachment issue there too.

I'd say that you can dump 'orphaned' info, but keep the params that stayed
the same.  But I see your point...

>       So my real goal is to design it in such a way that the user assumes 
> that this is a NEW plugin after this change, and they should not expect 
> anything to be preserved (though individual hosts may choose to preserve 
> as a feature). So I am worried if this is initiated in the plugin, 
> because then the host can't make sure that the user gets the right 
> impression. I.e. I would prefer that the user make a switch in the host 
> as opposed to pressing a button in the plugin.

But how can that work?  Need to think more on it..

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: