[gmpi] Re: Generalized Music Plugin Interface list is now onl ine

  • From: Martijn Sipkema <m.j.w.sipkema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:09:06 +0100

[...]
> This brings up an interesting question: Does "support control I/O"=20
> imply that the actual MIDI protocol should be used in the API?
> 
> Since the MMA is in on this, one might think it would imply that, but=20
> even so, MIDI is a *wire* protocol. I think having (most of) the MIDI=20
> *feature set* in a new API would be cleaner, more effective and=20
> easier to support for plugins and hosts alike.

I MIDI would be supported using the MIDI protocol (byte stream, but
preferably timestamped) this would guarantee that it is compatible
with MIDI.

A standard utility library with parser could prevent unnecessary code
duplication.

> (I'm strongly opposed to using wrapped MIDI messages for several=20
> reasons. Ask if you want the full list. ;-)

What exactly do you mean with wrapped MIDI messages? passing
struct { unsigned char[3] }?

--ms



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