[gmpi] Re: SDK/API model simplification
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:17:58 -0700
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 11:51:12AM +1200, jeffmcc@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Then you lock us into 'forced backward compatibility'. I'll
> explain...
I get that implication, I just don't buy that it's really a problem. And
actually, it's not even correct.
Assume we reoyally bone up designing 1.0. We fix it in 2.0. Your plugin
needs to simply support GMPI_VERSION 2.0 only. If the host can handle
that, then it will negotiate that with the plugin. From that point on,
your plug only needs to support the 2.0 structure. Hosts and plugs both
can have as much or as little backwards compatibility as they want. If
there is no common ground, you know up front.
It's a trade-off of a little flexibility (being able to partially support
a new GMPI_VERSION) for a little simplicity (not having to check all the
compatibility modes at every decision point).
Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
