Re: A modest proposal
Re: A modest proposal
- Subject: Re: A modest proposal
- From: Urs Heckmann <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:25:17 +0100
To be honest, I second Glenn's observation.
I don't know if Glenn's proposal is best or anything, but one thing
that holds me back from doing multi bus plugins is definately that I'm
not really sure how to handle it. I think I would need a week or two to
fully understand what to do with the current specs, or I would give
hosts a hard time with format negotiations ("after about 10 seconds on
an average machine, this plugin finally reports noErr on
Initialize()...")
A dead simple solution would be cool (which I think Glenn's proposal
is). I have the overwhelming feeling that any "negotiations" between
hosts and plugins are an expression of uncertainty...
Cheers,
;) Urs
Am 14.11.2004 um 16:27 schrieb Glenn Olander:
1) The design proposed in the spec is overly complex.
The byzantine nature of the way a plugin describes its bus
configurations and channel configurations has been a source of trouble
from day one. The lack of coupling between busses and channels, the
negative numbers, the obscure way the supported bus count is described
to the host, etc. have led to a great deal of confusion.
2) The design proposed in the spec does not match the needs of
users/host developers/plugin developers.
Those few people who have overcome the complexity of the spec to
understand I/O configurations, are then confronted with the
realization that
the semantics used by the plugin to published its supported I/O
configurations do not match the way plugin developers think of their
I/O configurations, nor does it match the way users think of their
choices of I/O configurations.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden