[gmpi] Re: 3.11 topic: Multi-timbrality and parameters

I'd be curious to hear Koen's take on all this. I do think shooting down modules is a bad idea.

-- Chris G.

> So far I like the 1D indexed 'modular' approach Tim and I separately 
 arrived at.  My gut tells me 80% of plugs will be 1-slot, so only use
 index 0, and 80% of the rest will use n-channel designs so the 1D
 system with identical param lists will work OK for them,

I agree with that analysis.

 and the 80%
 of the rest will be expressible as n-slot designs with different
 param lists.


This is what I called 'modules' and it was already more-or-less shot down.
It adds a small amount of complexity for every plugin to accommodate a
very small set of truly modular plugins.  I think it is very engineer-ish
and I like it, but I am not convinced it is necessary to go this extra
step.

It also does not map perfectly onto MIDI channels, whereas the "array of
identical channels" does. I'm inclined to think that this is enough.

The remaining plugins can fall back on the grouping mechanism and a
dynamic parameter list.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: