[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:41:30 +0000
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 06:21:03AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> > 2) It has the potential to make things slower - if the host has to step in
>
> Absolutley. That is true. When you mix plugin flavors, you have to convert
> data between them. This is a simple rule, and one I *think* end users can
> understand.
Um, so your planning to visbly label plugins with thier internal datatype,
so that users can worry about connecting plugins of different types
together? Strikes me that end uses shouldn't have to care about this kind
of stuff.
I'm just lost - we know that formats other than 32bit float are basicly
pointless (on PCs in 2003), and that supporting others will decrease
performance and increase the numbers of bugs in GMPI systems, but you
still want them? Why?
I still think we should just pick a foramt per architecture and stick with
it - its quite possible that by the time actually ge this thing written
there will be no significnat overhead to doubles, so we may as well
specify them, but I cant see theres ever likly to be a situation where the
advantage of having >1 datatype outweighs the cost+complexity of
converting between them.
- 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:
