[gmpi] Re: Where are we?: 7.1.2

  • From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:28:29 -0700 (PDT)

> My main point is, from the plugin's point-of-view.  Enforcing a single
> datatype, or enforcing a profile, is exactly the same thing (one datatype
> per plugin).

Yes - so far.  The usefulness of profiles has yet to be determined.  As
Chris points out, it MAY be useful to lump other things into a profile
umbrella.

> I'm just saying, you are adding an unnessesary layer of abstraction.
> Profile=datatype.  Why complicate it.

It hasn't ben proven unnecessary.  The advantage that I see to it would be
to keep out options that are technically not useful from introducing
potential incompatibilities between hosts and plugs.

It's roughly the same as saying all plugins MUST support non-interleaved and
plugins MAY support interleaved.  Hosts are guaranteed to support
non-interleaved, so plugins will work.  If we made them both be MAY
requirements, then hosts MUST support both, or face incompatible plugins.

IMHO, one of the WORST things we can do is give developers enough wiggle
room to make their GMPI plugs break on some hosts.  The minimum feature set
needs to be a MUST.



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