Tim Hockin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:14:35AM +0100, Frederic Vanmol wrote:I like this, and I've already been hard at work on a plugin metadata XML DTD. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to alter the vocabulary for GMPI if/when the time comes. For now though I think we're all getting ahead of ourselves. We should be working on requirements, not implementation.
The problem here isn't exclusive for a central db. It depends more on the
question if dlls/libraries can offer more than one plugin or not.
First, I think this is a must. The meta-data issue is not solved by this desicision, though. Plugins that have a known, static structure (most of them) *can* provide some external metadata. Plugins that do not have a known, static structure (wrappers) can not.
A compromise was suggested. Plugins that choose to provide meta-data can provide meta-data. Plugins that choose not to can not, and they will have to be probed. Meta-data is stored alongside the plugin (part of a bundled file, same basename, different extension, something like that) and NOT in a central database.
I don't like inconsistency, but I am willing to accept this compromise. What do you all think?
Ramifications: * define a plugin meta-data format * define the storage of metadata * define a probe protocol
Tim
-- ~ <http://www.dilvie.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
