[gmpi] Re: 3.9 Time wrap up #2 - LET'S FINISH
- From: "Koen Tanghe" <koen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:43:33 +0100
On Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:42 PM [GMT+1=CET],
Tim Hockin <xxxthockin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 11:01:11AM -0700, Mike Berry wrote:
>> Well, I still can't live with 3.9.29 as a requirement. Optional for
>> host, yes, requirement no.
>
> We're at a bit of an impasse. Supporting this should be VERY SIMPLE and
> will probably be done in the SDK.
>
> How can we make this useful while making it optional? What do you expect
> a host to do if it finds a plugin which needs UST?
>
> Everyone: What if we say that plugins somehow indicate that they need UST,
> and if the host chooses not to provide it, the host can fail that plugin?
> Or perhaps the plugin should check if the host can provide UST, and the
> PLUGIN (as opposed to the host) handles the error?
>
> This is a slippery slope. Do we want to go down it?
I already hinted I'd rather not.
But if we *do* need to take the "optional" road:
- if we let the host fail the plugin, I can tell my users: "host X doesn't
support the features my 'sofisticated' plugin needs"
- if we let the plugin handle it, I first thought "well, at least we get a
chance to do something useful ourselves then", but if it's a feauture your
plugin really needs, of course this is nonsense, so I'd rather not take this
option after all
Koen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
