[gmpi] Re: 3.15 MIDI (What does it mean to be a plugin)
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:43:35 -0700
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 12:28:54AM -0700, Chris Grigg wrote:
> Tim said:
> >The actor is synchronous to the caller. The caller knows immediately what
> >events are the result of it's event. This way, the UI for the use case
> >above will not have jitter.
>
> But earlier Tim also said:
> >So the primary tenet was that it was awkward (at best) to get multiple
> >setParameterAutomated responses for one event. Can we make this model
> >more acceptable?
> So I guess my comment stands, if there are linked parameters, then
> there are just as many dependent responses for a given event under
> GMPI than under VST. Or do you mean it's about getting them all in a
> bunch, vs. distributed over time?
That's the jitter part. Assume a VST with linked parameters. The UI
never jitters because the GUI has a back-channel to the parameter
information.
If you take away that back-channel, and instead rely on
setParameterAutomated(), you could have as much as 1 whole buffer of
jitter between when the user actually moved the GUI widget to the time the
linked widget moves. Worse, with proper MVC, you could have as much as 1
whole buffer of latency between the user moving the mouse and the widget
moving.
Without a private back-channel, or some other synchronous UI updater, UIs
will always feel sluggish and late.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
