[gmpi] Re: 3.15 MIDI
- From: "Martijn Sipkema" <m.j.w.sipkema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:53:28 +0100
> > > Does that mean we're designing MIDI's successor? I don't know. I
always
> > > envisioned the control of a GMPI plugin as a very programmatic API,
and
> > > very much NOT a wire-protocol.
> >
> > The semantics of the API are imposed by the wire protocol et vice versa.
>
> GMPI doesnt require a wire protocol (for this) as all plugins share the
> same address space.
That's not what I meant. I meant to say that the API and protocol are
related.
Also, it might not be a bad idea to use a byte encoding (host endian)
anyway so that plugins in another address space are supported also.
> > > * host-manages parameters
> > > * MIDI CCs must "just work"
> >
> > MIDI must be fully supported. Not just CC/voice commands.
>
> Agreed.
>
> FWIW I dont think this discussion is going anywhere. I'm still waiting for
> an explanation of why a control API that losslessly represents MIDI is not
> adequate.
I think I've given examples where compatibility is not possible or at least
not entirely complete with the mapping to the GMPI parameter model.
--ms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
