[gmpi] where we at
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (GMPI Mailing list)
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Obviously no one wants to discuss this any more. I think we're pretty close
to an A or B or nothing at all decision.
Should we debate merits again, or who is willing to bend? I'm willing to
bend to the group will. I'll be happy with some form of C, or A.
my position:
Option C
+ flexible
- complex
+ any plugin can reuse as many buffers as possible
Option A:
+ simple
+ well understood
- some plugins can't use it
a) Yes. A plugin-global flag indicates a plugins ability to do this.
This tells the host that ANY input buffer may be re-used on ANY output
(perhaps withing some higher-level grouping of stuff (think MIDI
channel?)). If a plug can not accept this rule, it must not use
in-place processing. (VST model?)
c) Yes. A plugin is given inputs and produces it's own output buffers
based on internal knowledge or other variables. The host is not
involved, except to furnish new buffers as requested. The plugin must
re-use or release all input buffers. Variations on this can be devised
to allowed shared input/outputs. (baton passing, or similar to DX
model)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
