[gmpi] Re: SDK/API model simplification

On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 04:08:26AM +0200, David Olofson wrote:
> > While we're simplifying, can someone remind me why GUIDs matter?  We
> > don't really need a globally unique ID for every plugin, do we? 
> > Within any GMPI installation, you already can have unique IDs that
> > are simpler and more meaningful: the path to a DLL file and an index
> > code within that DLL file. We need all this information anyway, and
> > it is guaranteed unique on a system...
> 
> Right - but how do you find the right plugins if you move a project to 
> another machine? Just having them installed won't help, unless the 

Of course!  Thank you for refreshing my memory.

> However, GUIDs don't really solve this either. Finding a compatible 
> version of the plugin is much more useful. I suppose we could use 
> separate GUIDs or something for the plugin interface (controls and 
> stuff; versions with the same interface and equivalent functionality 
> should have the same interface GUID), and keep the "real" plugin 
> GUIDs to support installing multiple versions.

As long as your plugin is compatible, use the same GUID.  If you break
compatibility, change it.  The metadata certainly needs a version field,
anyway, so you can have two plugins with the same GUID and different
version fields.

I guess the host needs to track (GUID, version) tuples to identify which
plugin to instantiate.

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