[gmpi] Re: Requirements
- From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <amulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:01:34 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Paul Davis wrote:
> this is the central problem with the
> abstraction-to-cover-different-API approach: each "native API" has
> some stuff that just doesn't fit into the least-common-denominator
> and so it gets dropped from the abstraction. but it was there for a
> reason, and now its gone ...
Agreed. A very good reason for rolling your own abstraction, or at least
using an opensource one that you understand well.
> its not (just) different binaries: its totally different GUI
> code. imagine writing your GUIs even just twice, once with VSTGUI and
> once with the regular win32 API. how similar would they be? how much
> like writing two GUIs would that be?
Well, personally I write for both win32 and macosx carbon APIs, using a
custom abstraction layer (couldn't get the source for vstgui at the time,
and anyway I hate the way vstgui works).
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: