[gmpi] Re: MIDI: Proposed Requirements (wrap up try #1)
- From: "Ron Kuper" <RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:12:17 -0400
>>>
Hold on, at this point, you should *not* be drawing conclusions. As you
say yourself, you don't know about the situation with AU. But then you
continue on to draw conclusions about it and what that means for GMP
<<<
I think I did only the same as you did. The only fact of the matter is
that developer's don't seem to have bought into AU's event system yet.
In my post I did preface my statements as "perhaps..." and "maybe...",
IOW I was speculating out loud. Here's some more speculation: maybe the
"shortcut" the developers took in only supporting MIDI in AU is
temporary. Maybe the next versions of their AU plugins will support the
real event model, once they've gotten more familiar with AU. Maybe this
transition is natural and sensible.
Anyway, this point is probably moot. We seem to have a sketch of an
approach that is both an improvement on MIDI, yet losslessly convertible
from MIDI.
>>>
> No, it isn't. The purpose of GMPI isn't to make The Best API. The
> purpose of GMPI is simply to choose one and standardize to it. Here
> again is the mission statement for GMPI from the day this list began:
Well, maybe it's not in your summary of the purpose, but certainly
plenty
of folks were saying what I am saying early on in the process.
<<<
If we can build something better on the road to standardization, so much
the better. But if it isn't standardized by a real standards body it
will be just another plugin API. The real problem is that there are too
many API's, not that the API's need to be improved.
>>>
> I would happy call any of these GMPI 1.0, warts and all, knowing that
> the future of the API was in safe hands and that we could "fix it" in
> versions 2, 3, etc.
You might be happy, but how happy is anyone else going to be to go to
the
trouble of supporting it? This is one of the few areas where we
actually
can give a solid improvement to existing APIs, giving lots of folks what
they've wanted to see for years, and giving an actual compelling reason
for GMPI to exist. I fear that the compromise here marks the beginning
of
GMPI miserable failure...
<<<
Suppose a year or so ago Steinberg offered to generously turn VST over
to the MMA. We could have spent this last year cleaning up GMPI 1.0
(nee VST 2.x) into a GMPI 2.0 that would be a solid improvement. To me
should would have been a resounding success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
