[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:46:28 +0000
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 08:35:31AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> 1) Multiple datatypes is NOT that much complexity, if done right, and will
> be a plus for odd users, marketing, and future-proofing. Adding double IO
> support is trivial. We can be the first API to market that supports
> double-precision IO (even if no host does it :).
1) It actually adds a lot of complexity - its 2^n more code paths that
have to be tested in every host (or plugin) implementation, hard to
debug, very hard to conformance-test. Tiny little things like slight
disagreements in level smeantics will mess things up dramatically.
"This plugin sounds bad, but only if I use plugin X just before it"
type stuff - no thanks.
2) It has the potential to make things slower - if the host has to step in
occasionally and convert between different datatypes thats another loop of
code to be paged in, cache damage, and the host cant do simple buffer
passing tricks to get audio between plugins.
3) WHY? No-one has come up with a single good argument why one host would
want to support plugins with two different datatypes.
- Steve, "Wont somebody think of the programmers!" ;)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
