[gmpi] Re: wrap up 3.8 - gesture start/end
- From: Marc Poirier <fipnid@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:04:26 -0800 (PST)
--- Tim Hockin wrote:
> 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.
I remember the N parameters thing, definitely important yes. But I don't
see what gesture IDs have to do with "solving" this. Other APIs already
allow for multiple parameters in a gesture without gesture IDs.
> 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.
Okay, only on start/end definitely sounds better to me than with each
param value change event. However, I still don't see why it's necessary.
Taking the example of a mouse click or XY pad finger-landing, for
examples, you can simply send a param-gesture-begin event when the finger
lands or mouse clicks down and then a param-gesture-end event when the
finger or mouse button is released. Every parameter change notification
that the listener receives during that period of time is a part of the
gesture.
Hmmm, I did just think of something, though. For undo or touch
automation, you want to capture the state of the parameter(s) in the
gesture before any changes occur, so in other words, when you get the
gesture-start event. For that reason, it would be good to know which
specific parameter(s) will be changed. So it does make sense to get a
start for each parameter. Though I still don't think that the gesture ID
is necessary, since the host can assume that if the other parameters'
gesture hasn't ended, then the new one is a part of the same gesture. To
me that is fine. But anyway, I'm not nearly as against gesture IDs if
they do not need to be a part of the parameter change events. Though I am
still against them if they are simply unnecessary and and unuseful added
complexity.
However, I do see one more problem with gesture IDs: synchronization of
multiple parameter changer sources (for example, a control surface, a
hosts' generic UI, a custom UI, etc.). How do these different entities
come up with unique gesture IDs when they have no clue what the other
entities are coming up with?
Marc
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
