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

From: jeffmcc@xxxxxxxxxx
To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:51:35 +1300

> The one thing that's really broken is something that,
ironically, GMPI  probably won't fix :(

> seems like it's
> time to  investigate mechanisms ..
> like - each plug-in being its own process, having  >
memory protection from the others and its own
> clearly defined contexts  and resource pools.

Well, GMPI does not rule this out.  In the same way a VST
plugin can be run in it's own process on Linux.  The spec
neither requires nor prohibits this.  It's entirely up to
the host.  Same with GMPI.

Except with GMPI, we did allow the option of running the GUI
remotely.  So we're in a better position than VST.  GMPI's
clean division of GUI and DSP makes such things far easier.

Best Regards,
Jeff

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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

Other related posts: