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

  • From: "Jeff McClintock" <jeffmcc@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:42:36 +1200

Tim,

As far as i understand, we agree totally.

Ignore what i said about timers. I was talking about VST.

Jeff


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Hockin" <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 3:14 PM
Subject: [gmpi] Re: gmpi Digest V1 #65 topic: Inter-parameter linkages


> On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 01:32:10PM +1200, Jeff McClintock wrote:
> >  The idle function is not itself a full-blown DSP plugin, that would
merely
> > shift the problem.
>
> Certainly, there is a use for timer-like stuff, probably.  I don;t think
> THIS is one.
>
> > This is the crucial point, The function is called *prior* to the
plugin's
> > process(), and sends the host parameter changes (slightly) in advance.
> >
> > It's about giving the host parameter changes in advance of process().
>
> Right.  So the helper plugin's outputs are connected to the DSP's inputs.
> The host will call process() on the helper before it calls process() on
> the DSP.  The helper will do nothing more than send events or (in the
> majority of calls) nothing at all.
>
> This way, the events are sent BEFORE the DSP's process() is called,
> avoinding that mess.  The control is still provided to the DSP author,
> who creates the actor in the first place.  Everybody is happy.
>
> My main point is that creating a loop that does:
> for each actor
> actor->process();
>
> Is silly.  The actor's which are sending events *really*do* want to be in
> lockstep with the process() loop, so why take them out of it?
>
> > > But what is the advantage of adding ANOTHER clocking mechanism which
> > > needs
> > > to be roughly in sync with the process loop anyway?
>
> Jack said:
>
> > The ability to run code synchronously with user interface services.
>
> Nothing is stopping that.  My diagrams showed the actor as a different
> type of entity in the system.  UIs can call into it synchronously to get
> things like linked knobs right.  The actor itself would actually deliver
> the event to the DSP.
>
> In fact, you can think of any plugin which does NOT have an actor as
> having a transparent one.  The UI would call synchronously into the actor,
> and the actor would deliver the timestamped event.  MOst of the time the
> "actor" is the host itself, which passes things through unmolested, but
> sometimes some plugins will provide a actor that actually does stuff.
>
> Event senders don't need to know the difference.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: