[gmpi] Re: My plugin system
- From: Marco Ballini <marcoballini@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 10 Oct 2003 04:28:13 +0200
On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 23:53, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:38:27PM +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
>
> > >I don't think GMPI is aiming to be as low-level as "Sine Oscillator" and
> > >"VCA" modules. While it COULD, there are optimizations you can make in
> > >such
> > >a modular system that GMPI can't make. Is that what you are asking about?
> >
> > Yes, but the important thing was the plugin re-usability.
> > A plugin system which would scale from low-level to high-level
> > is possible, I'm sure. One could always offer a monolithic plugin
> > opcode if optimization is desired.
>
> I think you'll find the people on this list disagree by-and-large. Most of
> the plugins GMPI is looking to replace are monolithic. That is how
> companies make money on plugins. No one is paying for a "Sine Oscillator"
> VST. Optimizing the API for such tiny plugins at the cost of monolithic
> plugins would be a mistake, IMHO. Now if we can make BOTH easy, then let's
> do it. But focus on monolithic FIRST.
Also, well designed monolithic plugins are more easy and immediate to
use (especially if accompanied by a good gui). I don't think that many
musician feel very comfortable with systems like PD or CSound.
Ciao,
Marco
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
