[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.2
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:30:55 +0100
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:29:18AM -0400, Bill Gardner wrote:
> 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.
But it doesn't have to be. I believe a well written spec can be clean,
simple and still offer enough power. You just have to decide what you can
do without. I, personally, see no need for audio format negitaition, and
that clears out whole swathes of API.
> Second, why are you interested in GMPI? Why not use VST?
Because VST is closed, has very bad musical data support and no support
for parameter events. The design principle is fine IMHO, even if the API
itsself is a bit messy.
The success of VST should tell us something about the style of the API,
even if we dont want to follow thier policies.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
