[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.2
- From: "Jeff McClintock" <jeffmcc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:50:43 +1200
Just because GMPI could support several datatypes, dosn't mean your host
has to.
There seems to be an assumption that we must *force* developers to do what's
'right'.
We don't have to *force* developers to stick to one datatype. Most will
anyhow.
I say just write a 32 bit host, use 32 bit plugins. That's what 90% us will
be doing. No stress, no incompatibility nightmares.
Later, if 64bit comes into vogue, add that capability to your host. Yes you
will have to handle the complexity. There's no way arround that, no matter
what solution we choose.
Give developers the freedom to use either int24, float32, or float64.
There's bound to be situations where two formats will co-exist to provide
backward compatibility, whatever.
I'm not advocating super-hosts, that handle every possible datatype. There
can still be different market segments, but we don't need to anticipate them
all and force people into a on-size-fits-all.
Best Regards,
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Hockin" <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 1:40 PM
Subject: [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.2
> > >Is it really weighing down EVERYONE? Most hosts will just not load a
plugin
> > >that is not Float32. I don't see that as any weight at all.
> >
> > what is the point in writing a new API to try to overcome the current
> > plethora of equivalent-yet-incompatible APIs, only to introduce a new
> > category of incompatibility. "sorry, that host doesn't support our
> > plugin's datatype". what is the point? what is the difference for the
> > user (or the plugin author or the host author) with "that host doesn't
> > support our plugin API" ?
>
> OK, that is a very good position. Is it safe to say that tehre are really
> only two basic types (float and int)? If a host is designed to run on a
DAW
> and it doesn't support float, is it safe to say it was intentional? Ditto
> for vice versa wrt Mobile hosts.
>
> This really does get me thinking, though, more than all the debate about
> profiles (Sorry guys - this one hit home). I've been going on the
> assumption that flexibility is good. Maybe we really DO want to force
> developers hands on this.
>
> Off thinking...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
