[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.2
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
> >You can guarantee me that no one will do an Int24 plugin for x86?
>
> That's not the relevant question. The relevant questions, IMHO, are:
> Does anybody actually want to do that, and if so, do we think their
> reasons are good enough to justify imposing on all GMPI developers
> the burden that supporting that would incur?
Let's get this in the open: What burden? Before you read on, please write
your answer. I really honestly don't see how they are not isomorphic.
below you will find my view of the development burden.
The development burden:
Support 1 profile (vast majority of plugs):
* hardcode the profile ID
* assume the datatype
* code 1 code path
Support N profiles:
* offer a list of profile IDs
* code N code-paths for different datatypes
vs
Support 1 datatype (vast majority of plugs):
* hardcode the datatype ID
* assume the datatype
* code 1 code path
Support N datatypes:
* establish N single-type builds
* code N code-paths for different datatypes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
