[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
as
> > 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
easily.

robert


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: