[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.2

  • From: Bill Gardner <billg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:29:18 -0400

At 11:57 AM 6/13/03 +0100, you wrote: 

The code becomes simpler and easier to follow. AS soon as you have to
worry about negotiating sample formats or any of that you grow a large
ammount of API biolerplate to handle it.

It's the price of progress.

If I cant write something like:

void process(state *s)
{
    gmpi_sample tmp;

    for (i=0; i<n_samples; i++) {
        tmp = s->in[i];
        s->out[i] = s->zm1;
        s->zm1 = tmp;
    }
}

For simple things like a 1:1 z^-1 plugin I will consider this effort a
failure

Two things come to mind. First, you can still write a simple loop like this even if GMPI supports multiple formats. Somewhere in the code you define a constant struct, passed to the host, that defines the formats your plug/pins can handle. In the case above, it could say something like FLOAT32 | MONO. And voila, the plug can't connect unless it uses this format, so you can write process using float and you're done. Sure you need to have some boilerplate code to pass the format to the host and "negotiate" the connection, but it hardly needs to be complicated, and it's boilerplate == shared template or whatever.

Second, why are you interested in GMPI? Why not use VST?

Frustrated,

Bill





----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2003