[gmpi] Re: low level API - Abstract Factory summary

  • From: Mike Berry <mberry@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:10:15 -0700

Paul Davis wrote:

We agreed that the API needed to be C for compiler compatibility, but I see no reason to extend C any further than the API headers. I would expect that the SDK code would wrap the C entirely.
Yes, COM can look a little torturous in C. But is anyone going to write
a plugin in C? Or a host? 


you can be sure of the former. the latter, i don't know, but we should
do nothing to preclude the possibility.

the reqs. clearly state that the SDK is available in C. i would
certainly expect there to be a C++ wrapper as well, but its not "the" SDK.


OK, this may have been an oversight on my part, but I assumed that the *API* was in C (for very good reasons). And further, I expect that any function definitions that need to be compiled by the user in order to use the API are in C. But the code that Jeff has been posting does not fit into either of those categories. It is example host code. We should focus our efforts in this department on example C++ code, as that is the dominant language for both hosts and plugins. We need to not do anything in the API which precludes C, but I don't think that what we are undertaking will ever result in pretty-looking C (if there is such a thing :).


--
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. 02-2005