[gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make

  • From: "Didier Dambrin" <didid@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:27:58 +0100


Personally, I think that no one would 100% agree or be 100% happy with any standard. I'm not even 100% happy with my own 5 years old plugin system because of some initial mistakes.




On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:11:40AM +0100, Didier Dambrin wrote:
Yes it's exactly what I was saying.

To which I was replied 'let's not get back on the subject', meaning
that
GMPI is already locked before even being used?

But note that it's just an opinion because I do agree I didn't
participate
in this thing, wasn't at namm & shouldn't really have a word to say.

As a host developer, I *want* you and others to have a word to say. I think we've already reached a good compromise on the requirements, and you won't be too unhappy with it. I think it's a win-win compromise.




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