[gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:52:36 -0700
These are all arguments that don't REALLY matter right now, but I want to
touch just a couple things.. Because I can't resist :)
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 03:38:22PM -0700, Chris Grigg wrote:
> 1. It's inefficient/cumbersome architecturally to carry the SM along
> with the pure GMPI message
>
> Depends on the implementation.
I don't think there is any argument that can be made that stapling one
protocol onto another is a clean model.
> We already have stapled MIDI SysEx,
You're being very sneaky there. We're not stapling SysEx, we're special
casing it. There is nothing to staple it TO, because SysEx is
fundamentally not a GMPI message. So the idea that there is some
stapling precedent is false.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
- Follow-Ups:
- [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- From: Chris Grigg
- References:
- [gmpi] MIDI: Stapling
- From: Chris Grigg
Other related posts:
- » [gmpi] MIDI: Stapling
- » [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- » [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- » [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- » [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- » [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] MIDI: Stapling
- From: Chris Grigg