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

  • From: Pavol Markovic <pavol.markovic@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:41:35 +0100

On 1.2.2005, at 21:26, Ron Kuper wrote:


Even those things are very fundamental.  A dispatcher based API has
merits, but might not work.  An object API has merits, but is
notoriously fugly in C.
<<<

I would like to see a dispatcher based API (for retaining the
requirement of C ABI), but have it immediately drop into a C++ object
heirarchy.  Not that I want to emulate it necessary, but MFC does this
in bridging Win32 messaging with a class library.

Also on Mac OS X the C pointer functions are used when crossing CFM/PEF and Mach-O boundaries. And maybe later will be used again when running up to another new binary object model.

PM


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

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2005