On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 03:18:05PM -0500, Angus F. Hewlett wrote: > > It needs to be provided by the host. > > vast majority of this stuff (excepting realtime memory allocation) need > not -necesssarily- be provided by the host. Probably true. As much as I want to see plugins just cross compile and work, it's a huge task, and a big imposition to expect every plugin developer to adhere to some big portable runtime. Maybe it should just be a separate project, and a reccomendation that if you want to be portable, use it. > - provides the possibility for centralised management of certain resources > (file handles? memory? preferences? threads? debug/trace console?) by the > host, which may aid in, for example, recovering the host when unloading a > failed plugin. memory management definitely should be part of GMPI. Maybe file management Plugins could then not have to worry about whether the plugin packaged into a tarfile, or whatever. We need a simple 'worker-thread' API. Debugging sounds like a good thing to centralize. Prefs sounds too plugin dependant. I think we can define a SMALL API that encompasses these things without providing a massive protable runtime lib. > AGAINST: > - complicates the API significantly I don't think it is 'significant' complication, if we keep it simple. Maybe the requirement needs to be reworded some, but I think the idea is still right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe