>> well, i think that POSIX would be an excellent model. i just think >> that there is likely to be a lot of opposition from others who see >> POSIX as a way for Unix-heads to sneak their own view of the universe >> into GMPI. and in some senses, they'd be right. otoh, POSIX is >> probably the best and perhaps only example of a comprehensive attempt >> to define portable OS services. >> > >Then let the plugins use POSIX for whatever they need it for. Why is it >necessary to put it into the sdk ? because if they choose not to use POSIX calls, and instead use native Win32 or Cocoa or <SomeOtherAPI> calls, they are writing a plugin that can't be ported to other platforms. a developer is free to do this if s/he chooses to, but as angus has pointed out, many modern plugins require various OS services. unless we make it clear how a plugin should obtain such services in a platform neutral way, we are *forcing* developers to write non-portable code, thus reducing some of the attractiveness of GMPI for everyone. --p ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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