[gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- From: Chris Grigg <gmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 20:35:33 -0700
Tim said:
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.
Non sequitir. You already agreed the information in both parts is
equivalent, so there is no tension between the protocols in this
case, and therefore no issue.
> We already have stapled MIDI SysEx,
...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.
Non sequitir. Of .course. we're stapling sysex (MIDI bytes) to the
GMPI message -- the only kind of message the plug ever receives, is
GMPI messages. There's no reason in the world why that stapling
mechanism would fail for other kinds of MIDI message. The logic you
propose to find my statement false is irrelevant.
Also if special-casing is OK here, why is it bad elsewhere? Or are
such rules to be applied only when convenient to the argument you're
trying to make? There is a General Guideline that says GMPI needs
to be efficiency in every possible way." '...Every possible way' is
pretty strong. Nobody has challenged the assertion that unnecessary
conversions are inefficient. Nobody has challenged the assertion
that stapling allows unnecessary conversions to be avoided. So, if
we are to be consistent about the rules, QED: they weigh strongly in
favor of stapling.
...Because I can't resist :)
List traffic would be a lot lower if only you would.
-- Chris G.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- From: Jack O'Quin
- References:
- [gmpi] MIDI: Stapling
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- From: Tim Hockin
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
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,
...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.
List traffic would be a lot lower if only you would.
- [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- From: Jack O'Quin
- [gmpi] MIDI: Stapling
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: MIDI: Stapling
- From: Tim Hockin