[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.1
- From: RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:42:26 -0400
This discussion is about requirements. Unless we rewrite our entire mix
engine, our host app requires interelaved or else performance will suffer.
Imagine GMPI 1.0 ships in 2 years. At that time:
[1] There will be DirectShow plugins in the field that we'll need to
support. These plugins will be interleaved, as they are today. Our engine
is optimized to be interleaved; if we optimize it for uninterleaved GMPI,
our performance on "legacy" plugins will degrade. Our customers get *very*
upset when they load a project into version X+1 of our software and the CPU
load goes up.
[2] There will be surround DirectShow plugins in the field. These are
likely to be interleaved too.
[3] Same as 1/2, except for DMO instead of DirectShow. (DMO is the plugin
format for DirectSound... remember, "one API to rule them all...")
[4] Same as 1/2/3, except for whatever the new plugin format for Windows
Longhorn will be. (There is yet another plugin format coming, so I've
heard.) If it's in the Microsoft pattern, it will also be interleaved.
One final point. Our mix engine is able to render fades one sample at a
time. We can't take away this feature; it's been in our product for years.
It gives us a competitve edge. If we go to uninterleaved, and want to
leverage SIMD in our mix engine, we can no longer render sample by sample
(we need to go to a 4-sample control rate). Can't do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
