[gmpi] Re: channels, resources and other stuff

  • From: Marco Ballini <marcoballini@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: 10 Oct 2003 05:25:51 +0200

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 04:52, Paul Davis wrote:
> >On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 18:33, Paul Davis wrote:
> >> >I'd like also to understand the exact goals of this API (for example if
> >> >you could add, remove plugins or change connection between them while
> >> >others are running).
> >> 
> >> i don't think that this has been defined. its really part of the
> >> host-side SDK rather than the plugin API per se.
> >
> >Yes but the API must be designed in order to allow that in a good way,
> >if we think that this is needed. That's why I consider it an API
> >requirement.
> 
> i don't agree.
> 
> i've been searching for the "holy grail": being able to reconfigure
> ardour's graph without ever causing a glitch in the audio stream. i
> don't really know how to do it in an acceptable way. nothing about
> plugin APIs would have any effect on the problem, as far as i can
> see. it must be possible, since ableton live does it, and protools
> claims to do it. that's why i say that this has do with the host, not
> the plugin API.
> 
> (as an aside, the only model i have for doing this is to duplicate the
> entire graph, modify the copy, then switch copies. this is very
> heavyweight, but it does work).
> 
> >Same as above (sorry for copy and paste, but I'm too tired now to
> >elaborate): Yes, but the API must be designed in order to allow that in
> >a good way, if we think that this is needed. That's why I consider it an
> >API requirement.
> >What I mean is: if we want to allow a network plugin and sequencer
> >plugin, they not only must be possible, but we probably will need some
> >extra interfaces to make them work well (from the point of view of
> >features and usability).I'm thinking of an implementation where those
> >extra interfaces are used also for other goals.
> 
> its not clear that this is true. Waves has run a "shell" plugin to
> host its own plugins for years now, using the existing plugin
> APIs. Although they wanted a bit more functionality (which the latest
> VST provides), it wasn't really critical, and i don't think many
> people complained about it. is there anyone from waves on the GMPI list?
> 
> >> >- Will sequencer plugins be allowed (on the same graph level of the
> >> >plugins it controls)? 
> >> 
> >> of course. did you read steve harris' summary of the types of data
> >> that are proposed? "music" data is a notation for "something like MIDI".
> >
> >Same as above.
> 
> not the same. the current results of the requirements discussion
> includes plugin that are:
> 
>        music in, music out
>        music in, audio out
> 
> which covers all the sequencer plugins i can imagine. i don't see
> anything else that is needed to allow sequencer plugins to function
> without limitation. can you?

Let me give an answer for all this issues.
That depends on the complexity of the host.
An analogy: You can use LADPSA plugins to create a poliphonic synth, but
it will require a complexity from the point of view of the user.
In the case of the sequencer, the extra interfaces i was talking about
may help its use and features (and help developers in writing a light
and fast host).
(I'm thinking of the case where you want to send the output of a
sequencer plugin to another plugin and also record your tweekings on
sequenced values with the GUI).

Ciao,
Marco



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

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2003