[gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:25:09 -0700
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 10:41:33AM +1200, Jeff McClintock wrote:
> > As a plugin coder, you may want to support multiple versions of the API.
> > using QueryInterface for API versioning means that you *will* have to
> be aware of it, doesn't it?
>
> Well, think about VST. in VST your plugin derives from audioeffectx ( a
> class provided by the SDK). When a newer version of the SDK is
> released, Stienberg update audioeffectx. You simply recompile your
> plugin with the newer version.
> At the lower level, the framework has been extended, but your plugin
> remains unaffected (unless you choose to take advantage of the new
> features).
>
> GMPI is similar. Sitting on top of the COM layer is the GMPI_Plugin
> class (provided by the SDK). Your plugin sub-classes GPMI_Plugin.
> Most upgrades to GMPI will involve bug-fixes and additions to the
> feature set. Therefore it would be usual for a new version of the SDK
> to be backward compatible. When an SDK upgrade is released, a simple
> re-compile should be all that is needed to bring your plugin up-to-date.
I was under the impression that there would be more COM'ish
structures, for example parameters, etc. The base class can not
completely encapsulate that.
If those things are not COM'ish, then each of those structures needs
to be versioned in some way, too.
Further, if you have a plugin that wants to support GMPI v1 and GMPI v2 at
the same time (or are we going to rule that out?) then the plugin *has* to
be notified about which API version to use, right?
I completely agree with layering and with hiding as much gunk as possible
from the plugin devs who don't need to fiddle with it. But I also don't
want to cripple them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
- References:
- [gmpi] ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Mike Berry
- [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Jeff McClintock
- [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Jeff McClintock
Other related posts:
- » [gmpi] ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- » [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- » [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- » [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- » [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- » [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- » [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- [gmpi] ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Mike Berry
- [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Jeff McClintock
- [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: ok, who is *NOT* "too busy"?
- From: Jeff McClintock