[gmpi] Re: Reqs Discuss: 1-11
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: GMPI list <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:07:29 +0000
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:25:01 -0500, Angus F. Hewlett wrote:
> OK, not intending to pick holes in LADSPA specifically, but:-
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Steve Harris wrote:
>
> > I think were partly disagreeing over names for the plugin states.
> > In LADSPA we have something like:
> > Loaded - produce metadata, build any sr independent things
>
> In GMPI we need metadata to be available prior to this (b/c metadata must
> be available before expensive things like sample load or resource load can
> happen)
Yes, sorry, I wasn't holding that up as a model for GMPI, I was just
trying to explain my terms of reference. I'm not familiar enough with VST
to explain it those terms.
> Also "Loaded/Unloaded" in this way implies a 1:1 relationship between
> code module instances and plugin instances. I would expect that in GMPI we
> will expect to be able to spawn off multiple plugin instances from a
> single module load.
Maybe implied, but its not true, a load can bring the code + static data
for many plugins into memory.
I agree that its desirable to have >1 plugin per DLL.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Other related posts:
