[gmpi] Re: Instruments done, moving on to "Plugin Files"

  • From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:14:36 +0100

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:50:02 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 07:58:02PM -0400, Michael Gogins wrote:
> > All of these "bundling" ideas are impractical, in practice, across
> > platforms. The best thing to do is just go for a probe function. If hosts
> > aren't happy with the probe overhead, they can make a checksum or timestamp
> > or something on each probed file and use it to make sure their database of
> > plugin metadata is up to date.
> > 
> > Facilities for doing this should be made a part of the GMPI API, host side.
> 
> The bundling idea was more than just metadata.  It also included bundling
> presets, help, graphics, etc.
> 
> That said, I don't care if we say that the "bundle" is a directory.  I
> like the idea of a jar file or a tar file representing the WHOLE plugin in
> a single file, but I don't *really* care.  It does make it easier to
> distribute files, for all the good and bad arguments thereof.

FWIW tar files aren't appropriate, tar is a streaming format so cant be
openeed by a VFS, you have to unpack the tarball to a direcotry somewherem
whereas jar files can be treated as filesystems without unpacking them
to disk.

This is, I imagine, why jar exists.

- Steve

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 08-2004