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


Personally, I think that no one would 100% agree or be 100% happy with any standard. I'm not even 100% happy with my own 5 years old plugin system because of some initial mistakes.



On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:11:40AM +0100, Didier Dambrin wrote: 
Yes it's exactly what I was saying.

To which I was replied 'let's not get back on the subject', meaning
that
GMPI is already locked before even being used?

But note that it's just an opinion because I do agree I didn't
participate
in this thing, wasn't at namm & shouldn't really have a word to say.


As a host developer, I *want* you and others to have a word to say.  I
think we've already reached a good compromise on the requirements, and
you won't be too unhappy with it.  I think it's a win-win compromise.




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