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

  • From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <angus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:00:17 +0000

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.


OK - how do you feel about object-oriented (or object-like programming for) GMPI data types?

Given that DX/DXi is fairly strongly OO, how does working with that (ignorning the fact that DXi's midi-queuing is sorta fiddly for synths) stack up against the brute-simple design of VST?

Regards,
      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: