[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:24:50 -0800
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 02:08:12PM -0500, RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Let's build it as we see for 'normal' processors, and then derive a
> GMPI-Embedded or GMPI-Mobile spec.
> <<<
>
> So what are you saying, that you want per-binary sample types should be part
> of the 1.0 spec, or not? I think we should avoid GMPI-x specs. The whole
> point of all this is to wind up with one spec, ONE.
The other whole point was to make a SIMPLE spec. Adding in profiles which
cover an unknown range of topics is the anithesis of simple.
We don't know if the profile will affect parameter types, threading, data
types, etc. And that is just the 'Mobile' profile. Then someone else asks
for the 'Set Top' profile because they have some slightly different
requirements, and maybe that needs to change some other aspect of GMPI.
The slippery slope ends up with many parts 'profiled', though only a few of
them change for any given profile.
One spec, but simple. Let's solve the obvious problem, where we KNOW the
problem. Once we have a full spec, we can evaluate exactly what needs to be
changed for a mobile/embedded 'profile' and build a slight derivation that
covers those changes.
It is semantically the same as a 'profile' except that I want to not look at
it as a derivation, and not an interchangable chunk of the spec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
