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

  • From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <angus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:57:37 +0000

Pavol Markovic wrote:

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

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. 

True... tho' is it still important to support CFM/PEF?

Also bear in mind that, given a sufficiently clean pure-object API, it's relatively easy for automated tools to produce bindings and glue for different languages and ABIs.

Cheers,
      Angus.



--
=========================================================
Angus F. Hewlett, Managing Director (CEO)
FXpansion Audio UK Ltd - http://www.fxpansion.com
Registered in the UK - #4455834 - VAT: GB 798 7782 33
========================================================= 


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