[gmpi] Re: using another plugin API
- From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <amulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 05:12:47 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Tim Hockin wrote:
> While I want to agree, two things jump out at me:
> 1) No one will get their perfect API. I am sure people won't like exactly
> the same things as me, and we'll ALL have to make concessions on design,
> naming, etc.
Yes, this is true... "design by committee" has not had a good history.
HOWEVER, what this list does provide is an important talking shop covering
all the issues in a manner that no one individual, or even a smaller group
possibly could, and I'm sure everyone here is learning a great deal about
how an "ideal" plug-in API should look.
I figure what will happen is that once everything on the agenda has been
discussed to death, a smaller (nominated) group will be spun off to do the
actual nitty gritty design work, based on the reams of knowledge that
will have been accumulated on the list.
> 2) The pace of this discussion makes glacier-racing seem like living on the
> edge.
True... but MIDI has been with us for 20 years now, and will still be with
us in 20 years' time. We're talking about building a standard worthy of
that kind of time frame, there is no rush. Ron did set us out a timeline
at the beginning which suggested possibly up to 2-3 years until the
first commercial GMPI-compatible software.
> I've tried to keep interest in XAP up, but no one seems to care on LAD
> anymore. Maybe I'll spawn my own XAP list. We can finish XAP and then
> propose it as a GMPI starting point. I think XAP already has some GREAT
> ideas in it.
I know nothing of XAP.. feel free to drop me a line off-list and explain
its advantages.
> Ron, I'm not saying I want to fork the effort, but this pace is not going to
> get us anywhere, ever.
Better to be slow and deliberate than to build a shoddy and flawed
standard and then have to live with it for the rest of all of our
professional careers... "do I want to be using this standard in 20 years'
time?"
> p.s. I think AU is ok, but is ugly. I'd want to tear it up and put it back
> together differently before I called it perfect. But if it were the defacto
> Open Standard, I'd probably go ahead and use it.
Yep, I agree - it's an OK foundation, but PLENTY of scope for improvement.
Regards,
Angus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
