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

  • From: "Mikael Hillborg" <mikael@xxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:54:32 +0100

<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.

Of course, one could have say 16 bits as mandatory and then have everything else
optional, but I see no practical way of realizing that in way which make things
reasonably easy from an administrative and implementation point of view. You'd 
then have an architecture where the same processing routines have to be provided
on several places in the plugin. Everyone who has created VST plugins probably 
agree that the solution with two methods, processs and processReplacing, is not
a very good solution (I've stopped to count the number of complaints about this
on the VST mailing list). The usual reply from those who created it is "It's 
just
a matter of copy paste". But it introduces more work for updates and 
maintenance.
Consequence: Some developers don't implement one of these methods although they 
*must*. And consequently it doesn't work in all hosts. 

MH


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: