[gmpi] Re: Requirements sections 3.4 and 3.5
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: GMPI list <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:27:49 +0000
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:10:12 -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:12:30AM +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
> > Speaking of which, I still dont like r15:
> >
> > "GMPI must provide a way for the host to indicate the current 'quality
> > level' (1-10 or 1-100) to plugins. Plugins can use the quality level to
> > scale back resource requirements during realtime use. Hosts should always
> > render at full quality."
> >
> > I vote to remove it.
>
> Why? Have you never been in a spot where you want to use a plugin, but you
> don't have enough realtime power to run it full-tilt? Or a plugin that has
> a 'quality' level built in, already? I have. Many times. I want to
> preview them in low or medium quality, while I muck in realime, but when I
> render, I don't care how long it takes. This is a perfect candidate for a
> well-known control.
I'm not saying I dont want it flat out - i'm saying that I dont think it
should be in the requirements.
The authors of the specification may decide they want to handle this
outside the specification (whihc I regard well-known ports to be).
I think we still disagree on the semnatics of "well-known" too :)
- 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:
