[gmpi] Re: wrap up 3.8 - gesture start/end
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 05:39:33 -0800
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:20:26AM -0800, Marc Poirier wrote:
> --- Tim Hockin wrote:
> > The gesture ID is needed in the case of multiple DSP parameters in a
> > single gesture. The above process would be done with the same gesture
> ID
> > on each parameter. The actual implementation details will be decided
> > during the specification and implementation. The above is simply to
> > clarify the idea.
>
> Wait, why are gesture IDs part of the requirements? If I remember
> correctly, you were the only one who wanted that, and that everyone else
> who has written about it was against the idea. I have spoken up about it
> because I felt that others had stated it well, but I will say that I am
> also against the idea of requiring parameter change events be sent with
> gesture ID values. And if that is not required, then gesture IDs serve no
> purpose at all, so basically I don't like them at all. I think that it
> adds complexity with no benefit.
I believe it to be a requirement that N parameters be part of the same
gesture. Getsure IDs was proposed as a means to solve this, and there was
no further debate, unless I missed emails.
But you only need trhe gesture ID on the start/end, not on each event. All
you need to do is indicate that the send is initiating a gesture G on
contols A *and* B (as opposed to initiating gesture G on control A and
gesture H on control B). The gesture ID tells the host that it is the same
gesture, not two gestures.
> I mean, if a user really is controlling a single parameter from multiple
> control sources at the same time, which is really uncommon already, I just
> don't feel like they will care at all whether the host has some way to
> individuate the 2 gestures. If the purpose is for touch automation, then
This is the exact opposite of what gesture IDs can solve. If two senders
send to one receiver, the host can sort that by knowing the senders. Just
as an example, each input into a switch has a priority. The switch sends
out the highest priority gesture. If a new gesture starts with higher
priority, the switch ends the previous gesture and starts a new one.
> Anyway, I am surprised to see this in the requirements proposal since I
> thought that everyone but you was against it.
>
Sorry, not trying to sneak anything in. After I proposed this idea (which
maybe was not clear enough) there was no more debate.
Does this clarify?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
