[gmpi] Re: New Reqs 3.8 - Events
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:51:15 -0800
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:26:58PM -0800, Chris Grigg wrote:
> See UV's prior thoughts in re Ethernet, IP, UPD transport. Plus
> think event storage in timed file formats ala SMF. If events can
> have a standardized data representation, i.e. as messages, then they
> can ride all these transmission channels without worrying about ugly
> stuff like remote procedure call protocols and platform mismatches.
> The message might have two parts, a timestamp field (subject to
> conversion per the current channel's time model) plus an event
> payload field with target plug, target control, and value (data is
> not converted en route, just travels end-to-end like in IP).
Got you, and I agree totally.
> >Anyone recall what this was about? I'll troll the archives a bit.
>
> Yes, this was nicely described, with Vincent's help IIRC, not too long ago.
My re-reading suggests it is still most useful for 'undo' features, but it
CAN be faked by the host. Can anyone make a case that we need something
like this, and why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: