[gmpi] Re: MIDI: Common event coding

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:33:28PM -0400, lists@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>    : MIDI provides insufficient note and controller parameter control,
>      particularly in its tendency toward a piano instrument bias and
>      low data resolution, there a replacement is required
>      - yes indeed, nothing new there; this is a topic for some other
>        standards group dealing with data formats, software, and external
>        hardware in the same context (i.e., a MIDI 1.x replacement)

If we take this point of view, then we're developing a new API that isn't
even as good as some old APIs in terms of features.  You have to admit
that this is somewhat less-than-desireable? :)

> :: Chris's proposal from Tuesday on having MIDI bytes ride sidecar 
> seemed pretty attractive to me as a compromise in that it opens the 
> door to alternate protocols. (Insert customary kvetching about why 
> more than one protocol is bad but is sometimes the only appropriate 
> compromise in a world with an overwhelming, ever increasing variety 
> of legacy software and hardware.)

I think Chris' proposal was wonderful *EXCEPT* the MIDI bytes riding side
car.  And the more I think of it, the more I prefer to provide MIDI
inputs to plugins that indicate their need for them, while keeping Chris'
proposal (which is essentially what I originally envisioned) clean of
MIDI.

If we have a protocol that is totally clean and 1:1 compatible with MIDI,
then I am happy (for now).  It then becomes reasonably trivial to have a
host that does not sequence MIDI wrap GMPI plugins which *need* MIDI in a
wrapper plugin.  I'll even volunteer to (help) write that wrapper.

And then, little by little, people will see the merits of going pure GMPI.

Hosts that already handle pure MIDI will not be impacted.  It might result
in plugins which run sub-optimally (or not at all) in some hosts.  I think
we (people who don't sequence MIDI) can work around it in a clever wrapper.

> In my opinion, a "no MIDI, period" requirement is practically a 
> guarantee that GMPI would sit virtually unused on the shelf by most 
> mainstream products. A successful GMPI universe should include 
> freeware and commercial, mainstream and non-mainstream products.

It was never "no MIDI, period".  It was always "we'll show you how and
why to transcend MIDI, and we'll make it really easy for you".

Any way you slice the end result, I think we've made the arguments as well
as they are going to be made, for now.  The reqs should be written to
allow any of the proposed models, I think.

So how about some proposed reqs feedback? :)

Tim

p.s.  It's always good to see more names on the list, especially with
well-reasoned opinions.  ;)

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