[gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make

>NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to makeFrom what I've read in this =
>mailing list, some were interested in having the plugin system 'own' =
>voices, being able to change their parameters on the fly (allowing =
>host-handled portamento & arpeggiators), while it ended up working with =
>MIDI internally.
>
>I can understand the need to work with MIDI internally for sequencers =
>that have a strong MIDI background, but still I find it more interesting =
>for the host to own the voices, and not just trigger them (1-way =
>communication).=20

I don't mean to be rude, but that part of the requirements discussion
was held a long time ago, and I don't think it of much use to reopen
this issue. The decision that was made was imperfect from most
people's perspective, as all compromises are, but better for most
people than either of the for-midi or against-midi choices might have
been. Its done, I don't thing it needs to be rediscussed unless we
missed something technical the first time.

--p

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