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