[gmpi] Re: REQ 16 and architecture.

  • From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:25:22 -0800

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 11:40:18PM +0100, Vincent Burel wrote:
> firstly i don't appreciate a lot your remark. Some People (like me ) need

Turnabout is fair play, I guess.  No offense intended, really.

> What does my graphic here !? strange question... This graphic is here first
> to be validated. Do we go to such architecture
> - basically 3 main components with different communication protocol.
> - what to do with mixed architecture (with external audio board).

> now, before i stop to participate here. Explain me why my graphic and my
> question about architecture are out of the discussion. You think you are
> intelligent enough to make a requirment list without any graphic or any
> discussion about architecture and organization !?

REQUIREMENTS.  This is the part where we all decide the things that GMPI
MUST do and the things it SHOULD do.  We don't decide architecture, though
we've done a lot of talking about it.  We don't do ANYTHING technical.
Really, requirements could be done by a marketroid.

It's too early to decide what the GMPI architecture will look like.  Maybe
there will be something like your diagram.  Maybe it won't.
Maybe it will involve sending messages on TCP sockets to each plugin.  This
is the wrong time to decide that.

THAT is all I am saying.

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: