[gmpi] Re: Reqs draft
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:21:59 +0000
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:49:59AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:14:35AM +0100, Frederic Vanmol wrote:
> > 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?
Yes, I dont like having two distinct approaches - we could do what someone
suggested and have all plugins produce metadata by inspection, and have
the installer cache the metadata in a disk format, except where the plugin
flags its metadata as dynamic.
That makes it slightly more integrated, and the ondisk metadata format
would be standard.
- 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:
