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

  • From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:58:14 +0000

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:43:39 -0500, gogins@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I think allowing drivers as plugins is highly desirable and has little
> cost. There is no reason to propose a new standard unless it covers a good
> part of the ground expected to be occupied in the future. If gmpi doesn't
> support drivers, driver support will soon be done some other way to the
> continuing confusion of us all. And I think ASIO, etc. provide enough
> experience to do this right without getting too complicated.

Actually it has a very large cost, both in complexity and user confusion.

It adds complexity, beacuse, inorder to be useful it has to be a required
feature for hosts, this means they have to support i/o via plugins and
many existing hosts will not be abale to do this without substantial

User confusion will arrise when they try to insert these things and they
dont behave as expected, what happens if you try to insert two ASIO
based driver plugins? How do you tell the user that it doesn't make sense?
How baout trying to add an OSS and JACK plugin under Linux, sometime that
will work, sometimes it wont, depending on hardware.

Lastly Windows certainly and Linux to a lesser extent really dont need Yet
Another I/O API.

Existing plugin systems have got on perfectly well without internalised
i/o drivers, I dont see what they would achieve.

- 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: