[gmpi] Re: Out-of-Band: suggestion for rethink
- From: "Vincent Burel" <vincent.burel@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:32:11 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Davis" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:08 PM
Subject: [gmpi] Re: Out-of-Band: suggestion for rethink
> >Peronnally i'd go further, i think that talking and talking without real
> >base (like source code sample or whatever project in progress) is
useless.
> >And by experience, especially when the goal is to design a system-like
> >architecture (or a library , or whatever components which can be used by
> >third part), designing it without programming it, takes an infinite time.
>
> i broadly agree with this, and could never have written JACK (for
> example) using anything like the process we are using now. however,
> the essence of what i'm suggesting is to use *existing code* as a
> starting off point. we have at least 6 existing APIs that are "fully
> implemented", in use by many people for many different purposes, and
> available for criticism, etc.
>
> so what i'm suggesting really is to act as if the existing set of
> plugin APIs are the result of the coding effort that you and Michael
> are suggesting, and move to the next step which is critiquing them so
> that we can move on once again.
>
> the key element is that we use the GMPI agenda as a way to organize
> such criticism, and we do not simply take potshots at particular
> features of a given API.
Well, i'm not agree with doing that. Criticizing actual SDK's will be long
and useless again. Everybody together know the advantages and problems of
all SDK's, that's the definition of this group ! And to use this experience
can be done right now. Taking a source base, in the actual set of SDK's, is
not possible because there will be always someone to say "Ho my god , not
this one" .
That i proposed is to build this base ourself first, all together. It will
be basic, maybe this will rich the Level of VST 1.0 in term of feature, but
it will be completely under control and this can be done quickly (2 or 3
months). After we will be able to go again into a more global discussion,
but in a complete different way of production.
> keep in mind that when it comes to acceptance, the process GMPI has
> been through will be at least as important as the technical details,
> and without acceptance, GMPI is a waste of everyone's time.
Personnally I prefer losing my time in doing something than doing nothing or
talking :-) And i think that this group need action and active
participation to stay alive.
Vincent Burel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
