[gmpi] Re: Where are we, again?
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
> Several people answered, and there was much discussion. (As always.)
Since Chris posed the questioned, I wanted to leave the guidance up to him.
There is no consensus, still.
> on the head. If we want to earn the "General" part of what GMPI means, we
> need to have a design that can encompass more than just float32.
I think we've already established that.
I'm getting REALLY tired of this topic.
I'm going to push ahead, I hope Chris does not mind.
A single datatype is not sufficient to support all the platforms we need to
support. In very general terms, a plugin needs to identify the datatype it
is expects for I/O. Is that a fair enough summary?
If the above is not good enough - God help us. It can't get more general
than that, and we've been on this topic for a MONTH. If that doesn't suit
you, offer an alternative.
Now the next part: Is it a REQUIREMENT to support plugins with more than
one I/O type? That is - different input type vs output type, or different
per-{pin,channel,stream,whatever}?
If yes, how granular MUST it be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
