[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:26:45 +0000
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> Well, if we allow extensible types (shudder) the host can recognize that
> these two plugins use TDM IO and connect them while leaving the buffers on
> the card. Then a TDM-aware host can make that optimization. It means
> adding types for things such as this. DO we really expect Digi to drop TDM
> in favor of GMPI? They WANT to be incompatible.
Its not that simple - the host has no control over the cards buffers,
they're the other side of the bus, and just because two adjacent plugins
speak the same native type, doesnt mean that they share the same address
space. I think the best thing you can do here is provide some message
passing mechanism for the plugins to organise it amongst themselves.
Leaving Digi's politics asside there are plenty of other DSP card vendors
who might want to be compatible, I'm sure - wether the reduction in
transfers and conversions is significant enough to warrent a substantial
addition to the API I dont know. On the upside 99% of plugin authors will
never have to touch this stuff.
> You poked holes, but didn't offer a position. I think I know yours, though.
> :)
Incase it wasn't clear: I think that allowing >1 format is a mistake.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
