[gmpi] Re: XAP

  • From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:51:52 -0800 (PST)

> > However, I think at this time we should discuss criteria. If an
> > existing "standard" meets those, it should be a base for GMPI.
> > (where I currently vote for AU, but that's not the question now...)
> Well, XAP is just a few steps ahead of GMPI in it's evolution. It's=20
> not a finalized API, but we're not very far from having an actual=20
> prototype host and plugins running. Point being that whatever is=20
> discussed here will probably affect XAP to great extent.

I'm a co-author of XAP.  I'd say we're 70% done with discussions and idea
slinging, and 30% done with docs.  I'm working on docs. :)

> I think I speak for the whole XAP team when I say that we are highly=20
> motivated in creating an advanced plugin API, and that we're not all=20
> that interested in creating another unofficial "standard" on our own.=20
> We see no reason in keeping and finishing XAP as our own, if it can=20
> come to better use as a base for GMPI.

I have to come forward and say that I detest the idea of calling my plugins
'Gimpy' (GMPI).  It has a bad connotation in English.  But we are willing to
bend to the will of the masses.  Somewhat, anyway.  We've put a lot of
thought, argument, and discussion into the last 4 or 5 months of
discussions.  In the end we want a plugin API that we can use, you can use,
everyone can use.


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: