[gmpi] Out-of-Band: suggestion for rethink
- From: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:33:32 -0400
I'm not convinced that the design process that has been outlined for
GMPI is going to work. Watching the discussion about most items
appears to me to have the following pattern:
* a question is posed.
* an initial set of answers, most of them based
on experience with existing plugin APIs comes forth.
* objections to one or more of the answers arrives,
based on experience with existing plugin APIs and/or
projections about future scenarios.
* the topic is thrashed to death until only the people
who really, really care about it are still paying
any attention (and perhaps not even them).
* slowly, everybody's interest in the overall process
diminishes.
And this is just for the *requirements* phase of the process.
I've been an advocate of this model for some time, because I felt that
collecting requirements without entering a genuine design phase was a
good idea. Having seen it action for several months, I no longer
believe that its going to work, and I'd like to propose an
alternative.
I think that we should people to issue summaries of existing plugin
APIs. Each summary should answer each question that Ron originally set
up as the agenda. It should also contain any meta comments about the
plugin API ("works, but clumsy", "confusingly named functions",
etc). It should finish by trying to summarize what there is that is
worth keeping about the API, and what should be thrown away. Its fine
for there to be multiple summaries of a given API ***BUT*** each one
must be "complete" - no little niggling comments about a given API, no
one-line critiques of this API or that API.
At the end of this (meaning some period of time, hopefully collecting
commentaries for VST(i), CoreAudio, DX(i), TDM, RTAS, MAS, LADSPA, and
any others), we will have a clear overview of the state of the game
right now. We should then try to come up with a synthesis of the
results, but working from existing material rather than grasping at
some intangible set of "desires".
Right now, I feel that we are attempting to pluck cards out of thin
air and put them on the table. I think it would be more productive,
and a lot faster, to put a pile of cards on the table, and spend time
shuffling them around, using the original agenda as a guideline for
what we're trying to accomplish.
I'm sure that people on the list will let me know what you think of
this idea.
--p
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
