Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:41:34PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > >I don't get what you're trying to say... > > > > The DSP part of the plugin must be able to inspect its parameters and > > all changes for a parameter scheduled to occur during a given > > process() cycle. This inspection must be possible at the start of the > > process() cycle, and must not be necessary again until the end of the > > next process() cycle. Changes the value of a parameter other than > > those already queued via automation may not take place during the > > process() cycle. > > Req 23: All events bound for a plugin during a timeslice must be > enqueued before that plugin is activated to process that timeslice. Events > must never delivered while a plugin is processing. > > > does that cover it? Almost. I was trying to state a slightly stronger constraint. Instead of making a statement about a single plugin, I wanted to make a blanket statement about the whole processing cycle. Perhaps your narrower statement is adequate and therefore captures the fundamental requirement. I was worried about possible hidden linkages between plugins or between multiple instances of the same plugin. Perhaps this should be explicitly disallowed. If not, then any changes within a single timeslice could easily become non-deterministic, especially if the graph aggressively takes advantage of multiprocessor hardware. -- joq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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