[gmpi] Re: 3.9 Time wrap up #2 - LET'S FINISH

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:43:33AM +0100, Koen Tanghe wrote:
> > This is a slippery slope.  Do we want to go down it?
> 
> I already hinted I'd rather not.

Heck, I put it in the reqs, so I think my position is clear.  This is a
small small feature which it sounds like Premiere will not be able to use
mostly.

> But if we *do* need to take the "optional" road:
> - if we let the host fail the plugin, I can tell my users: "host X doesn't
> support the features my 'sofisticated' plugin needs"
> - if we let the plugin handle it, I first thought "well, at least we get a
> chance to do something useful ourselves then", but if it's a feauture your
> plugin really needs, of course this is nonsense, so I'd rather not take this
> option after all

I prefer the model of the plugin requiring some GMPI sub-APIs and the host
providing it or not.  It makes simpler plugins.  But it takes away the
chance for the plugin to fall-back on something else.

The worst possible outcome would be plugins NOT stating what they require,
then expecting it to be there and failing or falling back on things.  If a
plugin wants UST but can live without it, what does it do?  Do we provide
two levels of API dependency?

Plugin "Foo" NEEDS "GMPI-UST" to work, otherwise fail
Plugin "Foo" WANTS "GMPI-UST" to work, otherwise warn but succeed

ickk...

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