[gmpi] Re: low level API

  • From: "Robert Fehse" <robertfehse@xxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 00:59:00 +0100

> > And then the host can know that it cannot remote the plug, and users can
> > know that this was a design decision on the part of the plug-in writer
> > opposed to a failing of the host.
> OK. Maybe issuing a warning as you say is enough and marking it as
> not-GMPI-compliant is too harsh... What do other people think?

it should be just a warning of course.
i would like to see how the gmpi - vst wrapper could pass the test as
'GMPI-compliant' otherwise.

perhaps the validation tool should be able to collect such important data,
so that future hosts can use the tool to get special plugin informations


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: