[gmpi] Re: 3.11 topic: Dynamic plugin structure
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:37:34 -0700
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Mike Berry wrote:
>
> - Plugin has 3 parameters. The user creates some automation for them.
> - The user switch the parameter list, so that now there are 4
> parameters, where the first 2 have the same characteristics as before
> the change, and the second 2 are completely new.
> The user may well expect for the automation from the first two
> parameters be preserved. But this can get rather nasty from the host
> point of view. We have no concept of "orphan" automation tracks, as
> Sonar apparently does, and adding it would be a major feature. And I can
> see some reattachment issue there too.
I'd say that you can dump 'orphaned' info, but keep the params that stayed
the same. But I see your point...
> So my real goal is to design it in such a way that the user assumes
> that this is a NEW plugin after this change, and they should not expect
> anything to be preserved (though individual hosts may choose to preserve
> as a feature). So I am worried if this is initiated in the plugin,
> because then the host can't make sure that the user gets the right
> impression. I.e. I would prefer that the user make a switch in the host
> as opposed to pressing a button in the plugin.
But how can that work? Need to think more on it..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
