[gmpi] Re: a little order?
- From: "Richard Furse" <rf015d9821@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:45:43 -0000
Amen - having been through the consensus process with LADSPA before, I
reckon it'll be a real challenge to get folk to read everything if we get
too tangential - I must admit I'm already skimming heavily!
It might be worth setting up a Wiki (or whatever those things are called) to
develop ideas in an organised fashion. I must admit I'm not going to have
time to read all these emails so I'll probably skim and catch up from time
to time, so it would be good to have a place where the current
state-of-the-art could be explored.
On the requirement side, as a start point with LADSPA I made sure I'd been
through lots of APIs that were out there already. There may be some clues
there... LADSPA's aim was to be a greatest common denominator (aiming at
general host compatibility) rather than a generalisation or "better way".
Even so, we probably don't want to be too general or requirements will end
up as the specification for an operating system.
As a baseline requirement, can I propose that GMPI does everything LADSPA
does (although not necessarily in that way)? As folk on the LAD list know,
to keep things lean I've been a complete stick-in-the-mud about any feature
that wouldn't be useful to most hosts, so I don't think there is anything in
there that we would *not* want. Only way to handle the flood of ideas...
Note that LADSPA doesn't attempt to approach GUIs - there wasn't enough
consensus on how to do this IMHO. Unfortunately for sanity of discussion,
this probably falls in GPMI's scope ;-) At the very least we ought to try to
keep these GUI+plugin very separate (after all, we may be selling dedicated
rackmount hardware implementing GPMI before we know it...).
Good luck to everyone - this is an ambitious project. Please don't flood my
mailbox too badly!
I'm going to go quiet for a while to see where things start to settle...
--Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Paul Davis
Sent: 11 February 2003 15:33
To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gmpi] a little order?
can i suggest that we perhaps follow a slightly more orderly approach,
at least to start? folks familiar with LAD will know how conversations
like this can rapidly swing into a multiplicity of different
orthogonal orbits.
since the purpose of the discussion is to frame the requirements for a
"unified" plugin API, i'd humbly suggest that we start by listing
things that we specifically do or do not like about existing plugin
APIs. no solutions, no new designs - just list the things that are
either problematic and need replacing/providing, or things that are so
great you wouldn't want them to go away. remember non-audio/MIDI
plugin APIs as well, if that seems relevant.
--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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
