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

  • From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:02:49 -0700

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:12:14AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I'm still willing to consider the compromise of "if there is no metadata,
> > then you must probe" if I HAVE to, but I find dualities like that to be
> > silly and a symptom of design-by-committee.  We are designing with a
> > committee, but I think we can do better than being obvious about it :)
> 
> Why do you need the duality? Dont provide for metadata in the object file
> (it cant do anything that an external file cant).

Because some plugins are inherently not static.  A VST wrapper, for
example.  In order for you to know which wrapped plugins are available,
you have to have the wrapper (a GMPI plug) probe at least once, and really
once whenever you add/remove a VST plugin.

So if you have to do it for some, just let it be done for all?  One
mechanism full-stop. ?

Is this external meta-data *really* going to save much time?

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