[gmpi] Re: Reqs draft
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:08:54 -0800
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:57:57AM -0500, Angus F. Hewlett wrote:
> 1- folder, which is the most prone to user tampering but equally the
>
> 2- tar, jar or zip... still somewhat prone to user tampering, but less so;
>
> 3- Binary with embedded metadata readable directly from the file system.
>
> 4- Binary with metadata readable via a specific entrypoint function.
Again, I prefer 4, but 1 or 2 are acceptable. On one hand I like 2 because
I like the single file. On the other hand, maybe it's overkill. Tar is so
lightweight that there is no reason NOT to use it, so that argument is moot.
It's a matter of preference. The more I think on it, the more I prefer a
single tar file with well-understood contents. By well-understood, I mean
that there should be some standardly named file(s) that indicate the metadata.
> 5- Combination of (1) or (2) with (4). The XML or text metadata has a
> special flag saying "This plugin builds its metadata on the fly, please
> call the entrypoint". Has the advantages of 1/2 and 4, but adds extra
> complexity.
I see this as pretty much essential. So my vote then goes to #4 or #2+4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
