[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.1
- From: "David Miller (MULTIMEDIA)" <davmil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:35:08 -0700
The only real argument I can see for supporting interleaved natively is
if a plugin does hardware acceleration. Nearly all hardware deals
pretty much exclusively with interleaved data, so anything that does
hardware accel would have to interleave/de-interleave to send to the
hardware if only mono buffers are supported.
If we don't care about hardware, then I would vote for strictly mono
buffers.
-----Original Message-----
From: gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:28 PM
To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.1
>>>
Doesn't it work to say the plug -must- always support mono buffers,
and -may- at its own option support interleave? Then a host that
only does mono has no problem.
<<<
That works for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
