[gmpi] Re: Implementations?
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:01:57 -0800
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 10:51:50PM +0200, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
> Now the discussions are not at practical level. It is great to have
> ideas on all kind of new gizmos, but I thought GMPI is only aiming
> toward a common plugin standard with existing gizmos. Many new
> gizmos are not used in the existing audio software.
I disagree, we need to at least EXAMINE other requirements before we
abandon them.
> Better would be if GMPI would be implemented to existing software.
> Claims that such implementations cannot be done before the requirements
> is ready sounds unbelievably academic.
Feel free to implement whatever you like before you think about it. Unlike
a 1-person project, once we define GMPI WE CAN NOT CHANGE IT. Call me
overly academic, if you like, but I personally take the engineering side of
an API as large as this VERY SERIOUSLY.
We have not fully defined what people expect out of it (requirements) and
you want an implementation. It is apparant that we ened to do the
requirements in-depth like this, since we find new reqs for almost every
section.
That is my position.
Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
