[gmpi] Re: Reqs section 3.6
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:26:10 +0000
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Vincent Burel wrote:
> > can do ANYTHING IT WANTS, as long as it doesn't break the rules of GMPI.
> It
> > might not work in all hosts or in all circumstances, but it should be
> > possible to work. For example, a host MAY decide to implement
> audio-inputs
> > and outputs as plugins.
>
> don't like this idea. I don't want to deal with a full generalist plug-in
> SDK like Direct-X. There is two main issue in programming job. To know who
> do what (what components or part of the software takes care about this or
> that) and to find a compromise between the full generalist architecture and
> a dedicated one. I would like to let the GMPI plugger, be focused on the
> significant task : audio processing according incoming parameters (again to
> improve the plug-in production process).
Yes, agreed - some hosts may want to reflect i/os of this kind as GMPI
plugins, but thats up to them, as long as they play within the rules.
The extra mechanic for handling generic i/o plugins seems like a lot of
overhead for very little gain.
- 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:
