[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.3 (was 7.4, but 7.3 was too detailed)

  • From: "Koen Tanghe" <koen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 02:10:19 +0200

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Harris" <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:09:32 -0400, RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> > Q: Do we handle silent buffers specially?
> >
> >   a) Yes.  There is a flag somewhere to indicate that a port is now
silent.
> >      Plugins and hosts may both treat this as optional.
> > <<<
> >
> > Yes, with one qualification.  The flag should be on the data buffer, not
on
> > the port...
>
> Disagree, because if the buffer is processed inplace it becomes the
> plugins responsibility to clear this flag if it writes anything into the
> output buffer.

I'd rather go with the "flag is on the buffer" approach, simply because
"being silent" is a property of the buffer in the first place.
As for the in-place case, this is no problem, because the plugin can just
change the "silence flag" to the "non-silence" state if it writes anything
to the buffer. I don't see the problem here.

> OTOH if the flag is on the port, then a compliant plugin can copy the flag
> to the appropriate output port.

I don't get the point: if the plugin sees the incoming buffer is silent, it
can also just mark the output buffer as silent, no? Or is there something
more complicated involved here?

Koen



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 08-2003