[gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:38:00 -0700
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 01:05:55PM +1200, Jeff McClintock wrote:
> > I'm beginning to think that these controller plugins don't just use a
> > parameter-out, since there is so much metadata and routing that needs to
> > be handled.
> Well, to me control-out and parameter-in are opposit sides of the same coin.
> It's natural to connect the two. They should use the same mechanism
> (timestamped events).
They are 'logically' the same. But really there are two forms of control
outs. Specific and generic.
> Both generally have the same meta-data (datatype, hi/lo range, etc).
Specific control-outputs would have matching types/ranges etc as their
destined inputs. Useful for custom UIs or for well-know parameters (think
tempo, etc.)
Generic outputs can be tied to ANYTHING. My point was that *maybe* these
generic outputs are different at a more fundamental level.
The only remaining req in 3.12 is the one about generic outputs. Are
there any other things we need to REQUIRE of control IO?
> I guess I'm used to a modular approach, where you can connect any output
> parameter to any input (of the same datatype). I like the flexibility that
> gives.
If all controls were normalized... It makes this problem easier but other
things harder. We decided early on that we want the ability to have
natural ranges. Do we want to change that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
