[gmpi] Re: Topic 1: Audience for and users of plugins

  • From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:37:30 +0000

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:37:50 +0100, Smartelectronix - Bram de Jong wrote:
> From: "Mikael Hillborg" <mikael@xxxxxx>
> <snip>
> > It's not feasible for a plugin to provide different code snippets
> > for different bit depths, e.g. one piece of code for 8 bits, one for 16,
> one for 24 and
> > one for 32. Oh no.
> It is if the coding in X-bits X-format is optional.
> This is coding-details (auch!), but one could let mappings be done by the
> 'Hosts' used on DSP systems would only 'support' plugins
> that are compiled with the "I can process 24bit fixed point" option enabled.
> Plugins that ONLY support -say- 24bit fixed point would need converted
> buffers
> from other hosts.

Sure, but this adds complexity, and makes the hosts harder to write.

There are so few situations where it makes sense to talk integers to the
plugins that I dont think its worth the complexity to support it.

- 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: