[gmpi] Re: lost-n-found #3 parameter stuff

Koen Tanghe wrote:

I tend to agree with this last point of view.
If the host is told to serialize an entire project, I would expect it to ask
the plugin at some point to serialize all it needs to serialize in order to
be able to restore its own part of the project to its original state. This
includes sound files if needed. If we think that its too difficult to let
each plugin handle this by itself, we can make some host routines that make
it easier to serialize and unserialize a sound file to/from the plugin
specific part of the project storage.
What do other people on the list think about this item?

Koen



Hi all,

From my experience creating sampling engines I think that the ability to give a list of files we rely on to the host so that he can create archives is really great. In a sampler, you really can't afford to save the samples in the parameter datas (a la vst chunks) but this means you currently have to manage the files by hand which is a chore that reminds me of the nightmarish night in the 80s and the 90s, when one would have to save sysexes and patch numbers for each synth used in a sequence in order to be able to load them back the next day. Computers can do that automatically, reliabily, and a lot faster that human can do.
The cost of saving this info and using it is so low that i don't see any reason why it should not be done :-).

My 0.02 euros,

Sebastien, going back tu lurk mode ;)

--
http://www.usbsounds.com


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