[gmpi] Re: Reqs 5, 6, 11 for debate

  • From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <amulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:49:50 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> >>>
> so, you want us to pollute GMPI with extra junk just to to fit in the
> misdesigns of Redmond?
> <<<
>
> No, definitely not.  But I do want to make sure GMPI plugins will be able to
> work in these RT contexts.

You can't make sure that ALL GMPI plugins are able to work in these
contexts.. the best you can do is allow them to support it if they want
to. I don't know anything about this new MS technology... why are they
doing it? Will the latency performance of regular threads on Longhorn be
worse than on 2K/XP?

> Agreed.  But the memory touched by your realtime DSP code needs to have been
> allocated from this special pool.  And if your plugin does disk streaming,
> the disk IO calls need to come from a special place too.

The diskstreaming plugins I've worked with do not do disk streaming from
the process thread anyway... they have a seperate thread for that. I would
expect that to be the usual design, but perhaps someone can contradict?

Regards,
        Angus.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2003