Thanks all for the short overview. Apparently nothing much has changed indeed. If I could help, I'd do it, but all I can say is I'm more for the NMiG camp, and I used to feel more for the listener/notification scheme with the plugin being master of its parameters and notifying registered listeners when something changes. But that doesn't help at all, of course. Don't know about the following requirements, but if they're not related directly, maybe we could let these things sink in a bit and start a new one? On the other hand, while the discussions are going and people are interested (!) we might as well continue? What worries me a bit is that apparently the notification scheme between plugin and host seems to have popped up again. Are there good reasons to revisit that? Koen /back to lurk mode, but popping in if I think I have something useful to say... On Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:59 AM [GMT+1=CET], Mike Berry <xxxmberry@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ron Kuper wrote: > >>> 3) MIDI as an equal partner of GMPI events inside the GMPI graph. >>> Basically a third fundamental data type, to go with PCM audio and GMPI >>> events. >> >> >> I'd like to clarify on (3), since it's the one I advocate. There are >> still 2 data types, PCM audio and GMPI events. GMPI events are already >> polymorphic, I'm just proposing a "tagged blob" type for MIDI. >> > > Sorry Ron - didn't mean to leave you out :) > > I think that what you describe is probably position 4, with position 3 > having some advocates too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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