[gmpi] Re: R: Re: Topic 1: Audience for and users of plugins
- From: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:40:37 -0500
>Do not make sense to me doing differentiation between types of plugins..
Actually, that's what I am trying to avoid.
Ron's list focused on the nature of the transformation (Audio->Audio,
Music->Audio, etc.) and I think we agree that this is the wrong
"dimension" to think about this in.
I prefer to focus on the whether a plugin is considered to be a source
of a certain kind of data and whether it can also be a sink of a
certain kind of data. We are only considering audio + music data (no
video, for example), so when describing a given plugin, we have a 2 x
2 matrix:
INPUTS
Audio Music
O
U Audio
T
P
U
T Music
S
There are many combinations possible, and I think GMPI should support
all of them except (probably) a plugin with no input and no output :)
Common forms would be:
MIDI-driven synthesis: Input: { Music } Output: { Audio }
Audio processing: Input: { Audio, Music } Output: { Audio }
MIDI processing: Input: { Music } Output: { Music }
etc.
The point is that we are trying to define a goal for GMPI, and the
goal needs to be clearly stated. I believe the goal is not to exclude
any potential plugin that can be described by this 2x2 matrix.
--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:
