[gmpi] Re: Requirements
- From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <amulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:25:06 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:55:45 -0500, Angus F. Hewlett wrote:
> > Certainly you don't need it at all for a responsive UI. However, when you
> > are talking about plugins with complex UIs, it does make things more
> > difficult. Nonetheless it does have advantages. All I can say is, we
> > should encourage it and make it easier, but not make it mandator.
> How much middle ground is there between plugins that can be well supported
> by host-generated or pixmap+XML descriptions and plugins that its worth
> having out-of-process UIs for?
A very valid point. I'm happy with big plugins having out-of-process UIs
provided
a. it doesn't detract too much from the user experience.
b. we have some kind of legacy support (even if it's a hack) on those
platforms where there is a significant set of legacy plug-ins.
> I'd guess that there few things that fall down the gap, but maybe not.
Depends really how far your pixmap+XML toolkit goes... having said that,
you do create a steep discontinuity there. A developer who has built a
complex UI with a decent pixmap/XML system will be pretty frustrated if
they all of a sudden run in to an obstacle and have to recode as an
out-of-process UI.
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:
