[gmpi] Re: where we at
- From: "Jeff McClintock" <jeffmcc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:19:46 +1200
> I think it is clear that people are losing interest, and I believe this is
> because there is no immediate reward for our thoughts. Possibly, people
> should propose models of a complete plugin API, several alternative models
> that is, and solicit contributions and refinements. Then we could vote, or
> something. These models would be in the form of stub host/stub plugin and
> enable all negotatios, graph construction, etc.
Hi Michael et all,
I like Michael's proposal. We spend a lot of effort arguing about
implementation details, and a lot of time arguing about which of two
approaches is simpler/more efficient/etc.
If we had an *absolute* minimum implementation. It would provide a test
bed for various ideas.
I don't know how many times I've dreamt up a simple, elegant design, only
to have it crash and burn under the harsh reality of actually coding it.
We could get some real performance figures for "baton passing vs
pre-allocated buffers" for instance.
I suggest it's also a more modern, iterative approach to design. ("Extreme
Programming" is the label).
Our current approach is more 'top-down'?, is that the term?. (the word
"Bloatware" also springs to mind, but perhaps i'm biased).
The downside is the potential chaos of managing the process.
What do you all think?
Best Regards,
Jeff M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
