[gmpi] Re: Requirements
- From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <amulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:24:55 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Frederic Vanmol wrote:
> > Mandating that all plugins MUST be parameter-controlled only means that
> > the vast majority of existing plugins cannot be wrapped to be
> > GMPI-compliant (and in many cases cannot be ported to GMPI-compliance
> > without significant recoding).
> >
> > I hate to say it, but I think we'll have to fudge this one somehow...
> > Thoughts?
> If we have "blob" parameters, then we can save the entire plugin state (for
> VST and DX plugins at least) in one parameter if there's no other way. It's a
> big fudge of course.
Yes, but I mean on the UI aspect, or if other aspects of the GMPI design
lean too heavily on this "requirement" and make plugins with tightly
coupled chrome-UIs and DSP engines unworkable.
Breaking automation and parameter control in legacy plugins is one thing
(hey, some would say it's pretty broken already), breaking them entirely
is quite another.
Regards,
Angus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
