[gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place

  • From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 09:31:12 -0700 (PDT)

> On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 12:27:02 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> > > The plugin does not know the criteria for optimisation, so it can't decide
> > > when it should do inplace and when not.
> > 
> > That's bass-ackwards to me.  Only the plugin knows what it can optimize.
> 
> No, because the actual optimisation is to save a buffer copy, and only hte
> host knows when and how thats possible.

So, indulge me, please.  If the optimized plugin follows one simple rule,
then the PLUGIN knows more than the host.  The rule: re-use every buffer you
can.  Now the plugin can do strange things or whetever it needs internally.
Whenever it CAN re-use a buffer, it WILL.  This includes every plugin that
can use the simplest method, and probably a bunch for which that was too
restrictive.

I'm not seeing AT ALL how the host can know more than the plugin.  The host
knows the bigger picture, but that doesn't really matter - the plugin has a
minimum number of buffers it needs to run.

I'm sorry if I am being dense.  I am not saying Baton passing is necessarily
worth the complexity, but I do see it as a *potential* win at not much more
complexity.  The biggest problem is that it's DIFFERENT.  People don't like
that.  Help me see the light?


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

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2003