[gmpi] Re: 3.9 (draft) use cases and stuff

  • From: "Koen Tanghe" <koen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:41:38 +0100

On Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:08 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Tim Hockin <xxxthockin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> And is it a requirement that a tempo change be enacted or is it optional
>> Preferably yes, but I realize some host makers will not want to deal with
>> this as most of the plugins don't need this. So, maybe: hosts must
>> support it, but they are free to do something useful with it. (I don't
>> like these "undecided" things, but since you allowed an "it's optional"
>> choice...)
> Obviously, nothing should blow up under any case, but is it REQUIRED for
> hosts to allow plugins to change tempo?  If we don't require it now, then
> it will likely end up like VST - only one host supports it.  If we do
> require it, guys like Ron who have hosts that don't support it will need
> to jump through hoops (thereby decreasing the chance of GMPI succeeding).
> So what do you people think?

If I were the one to decide, I'd say "required".
But *of course* I'm not (and wouldn't want to be, this is a group discussion
after all) so that's why I said "preferably yes".

It's simple: for a tempo tracking (+ changing) plugin it *is* required if
you don't want it to end up like some VST functionality.
If a host has no concept of tempo, then of course nothing CAN happen.

> As Mike said - this sounds like an experimental host, to me.  All of these
> "advanced" features we're talking about (changing tempo, meter, transport,
> and sequencer plugins, etc.) are really ancillary to the MAIN goal of
> The vast vast vast majority of users today survivie without them.

Of course: they have no choice, do they?

> If we
> can add them cleanly and simply and without too many corner cases, I'm
> for it. If we can't, then I say screw 'em.

> I'd rather see a complete, simple, elegant plugin API that only handles
> instruments and effects than a monstrosity that is totally modular but has
> all sorts of gotchas for hosts and plugins.

OK... I see your point.
But if tempo changing is not supported, I have no interest in GMPI.
This is not a threat or anything (I am in no position make one, and it's not
in my nature at all anyway). It's just that if these things that are
possible already in another API are not made possible (I could live with
optional) in GMPI, I don't see why I would step over to GMPI.

Oh well, enough talk about this. I'll settle with the majority.


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: