> >[...] >> I would rather look at it as an example of the not really as free as they >would have you believe GPL biting us. :-) > >Well, the GPL is about freedom for the user also. And many library >developers >choose to use LGPL. Oh no! Not license wars! ;-) Just to save us all, I will say "No comment". >[...] >> Where to begin? I would look at the BeBook. That and the MIDI spec. >> I would start by ignoring serial ports/USB all together and writing a MIDI >parser >> for files. A second development track could use the existing (Be's) parser >and load and >> play instrument files. > >Parsing a MIDI file is simple and better left to the application. The midi2 This is one of the places where it looks like Be and I had a difference of opinion. I honestly didn't believe that Midi2 didn't have format parsing, but you are correct. That *sucks*. I think that parsing the data stream (which, AFAIK is the same from serial, USB or file) is a *critical* piece. That and synthesis. I would welcome comments from everyone on this, but I think that what we really want (and maybe what Be had in mind) is a combination of the two. Classes like BMidi, BMidiPort, BMidiStore would be producers and/or consumers (from Midi2), and would parse/encode data from ports/files. >kit does not >provide any MIDI file parsing. A seperate MIDI file parsing library could >always >be added later. Sure. As could MIDI support in general. But I think that adding a lot of this upfront saves developers time, which is really the whole point.