[gmpi] Re: 3.14 UIs
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:29:44 +0100
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:01:13 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 01:41:57PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > The difference is that I can't (re)write the plugin, but I can
> > write/engineer a (G)UI for the plugin, because GMPI defines how to
> > control a plugin. I can therefore create a system that works the way
> > *I* want it to work rather than the way EmApple (or whoever) want it
> > to work.
>
> And knowing EmApple, they will *NOT* be happy about this. They will then
> get a thousand phone calls about this-or-that weird UI not working.
>
> If we require remote UI to be a specific protocol, then they will not use
> it. Worse, they'll do one of their own that runs on supported mini-hosts,
> with supported OSes with supported plugins.
I simply cant imagine why you think this. Apple use HTTP for filesharing
(eg. in iTunes), why wouldnt they us a standard IPC protocol here? Not
to mention how much apple back applescript. I dont buy Pauls argument
about being able to write you own UI, just cos you know the protocol
doesnt mean you can get control - they could do all manner of crazy stuff
with blob parameters if they wanted to stop you.
Reason uses OSC control as a selling point, and I imagine a lot of other
people would if they got it as a side effect.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
