[gmpi] Re: gmpi Digest V1 #65 topic: Inter-parameter linkages

  • From: Mike Berry <mberry@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:47:12 -0600



Tim Hockin wrote:

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 07:46:33PM -0600, Mike Berry wrote:

My idea was that only changes to the UI interface for automation data would be processed through the actor. When the host is simply playing back from the automation, then it can be confident that all of the values are legal, having already passed through the actor when the were recorded/created. 


What if the recorded automation was valid at the tiome it was recorded,
but some later change has made it invalid?

I think everything needs to go thru the actor.


No, this removes one of the primary reasons for having the actor in the first place. How could some later change have made it invalid? All changes must be processed by the host. It is the host's responsibility to process all incoming changes through the actor and adjust its storage accordingly.
But if we require the host to play back automation through the actor, then the host has to deal with the automated values potentially changing at a time when that is illegal.
Can you give some example of how the automation could have become illegal without the host knowing (other than the plugin binary changing)?

--
Mike Berry
Adobe Systems


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 04-2004