[gmpi] Re: Reqs draft
- From: "Vincent Burel" <vincent.burel@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 19:12:37 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Davis" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: [gmpi] Re: Reqs draft
> >> ah, this is the core of the speed concerns, eh? so, to handle the
> >> paranoia (somewhat justified paranoia :) of proprietary developers,
> >
> >You have maybe the change to stay alive without saling any software ,
this
> >is not my case , sorry.
>
> not the right forum for this discussion, alas.
you did start :-)
> >What are you talking about !?.
>
> most modern OS's are multi-user systems. i might want to install
> plugins on a system where i do not have "administrator/root/superuser"
> access.
Why you want might that ?
> now, if you can guarantee that "Foomatic v1.2" and "Foomatic v1.3"
> always show up with names like that, OK, but last time i looked, all
> the hosts i've seen don't show version numbers of plugins. So what is
> a user to think when the list shows "Foomatic" and "Foomatic" ? which
> is which?
update replace old ones.
> >if you prefer that why not, personnally i prefer to deal with a central
> >datafile, with access function provided by GMPI to register the plug-in
and
> >information in.
>
> what calls the function? the plugin? when?
the plug-in or the installation program may call a function (provided by
GMPI) to register the plug-in on the system and store extra information...
>how does it get write
> permission to the database? on multi-user systems you don't have
> permission to write to system-wide files unless the program being
> executed has been given special priviledges. which program is that?
> nuendo?
as far as i know, there is always a common area for that ! ? you are sure
that you know something about per-user system ! ?
> >> AFAIK, all modern operating systems (windows included) do not allocate
> >> memory for the data sections of a DLL until the relevant addresses are
> >> touched. they *might* (if implemented badly) have to read the data
> >> sections while loading, but it doesn't get loaded into memory at that
> >> time.
> >
> >Sorry Paul, you are too much in the theoritical aspect, if you load a
DLL,
> >it is to put it in memory , otherwise why loading a DLL !? well, If you
>
> virtual memory. did you not study modern operating system design at
> some point?
yes , i did, but practically speaking, the Host load the Library and
instantiate an object to get back information, so the object load resources
and so on and finally takes the total memory ... And this will stay in
memory until the O/S decide to unload that because there is not enough RAM
for
the current program running (if there is enough RAM the DLL stays in RAM).
> >load all your VST's plug-in on your system without using memory, let us
know
> >the method :-)
>
> there is no method.
Ok, stop talking so.
thanks.
Vincent Burel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
