[gmpi] Re: 3.9 Time Formats

  • From: Andy <andy@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:42:33 -0000

Until this example from Michael, I too found it difficult to see why a
plugin would want to change the tempo map of the host.  However I can now se
the merit of Michaels case.

However like Paul, I'm not sure host developers would want a plugin messing
with their tempo maps.  I think we would also need to consider what would
happen if two instances of the plugin tried to change the tempo map at the
same time, at the same place, but to different values.  Which would have
precedence ?  If we say there can only be one tempo changing plugin at a
time, who is going to enforce that and how , more work for the host.

Is there a host developer who would care to comment on this ?

On balance I think I'm against a plugin changing a host tempo map.

Andy C

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Davis [mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 17 February 2004 13:48
> To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gmpi] Re: 3.9 Time Formats
> >The user records a live pianist without a click, because the pianist
>  [ ... example elided ... ]
> >I realize this is a specialized plug-in capability that would very much
> >help my needs in particular, and perhaps very few others' at this point,
> With the greatest respect for and understanding of your example, I
> would say that the feature you are describing is just about the only
> one in which a plugin requires write access to the host's tempo map.
> However, its a feature that many people would tend to expect to be
> handled by the host itself (given the host's traditional control of
> the tempo map). Its no accident that BeatDetective and other similar
> tools are not plugins.
> The fact that most hosts today can't do this can be seen either
> variously as supporting (1) offering this capability to plugins or an
> open source development model. Either way, it requires a great deal of
> change/support on the host side, all to be able to provide
> functionality that the host could (and probably will) provide itself
> at some point.
> In short, you're asking for a major chunk of support in GMPI to enable
> a corner case that will probably vanish in a few years. I don't think
> that rules it out (and my assessment may be wrong anyway), but its not
> an easy sell from my perspective anyway.

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: