Re: Does anybody implement 'reset' in their Instrument Audio Units?
Re: Does anybody implement 'reset' in their Instrument Audio Units?
- Subject: Re: Does anybody implement 'reset' in their Instrument Audio Units?
- From: Jim Wintermyre <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:51:40 -0800
At 5:03 PM -0800 3/2/10, William Stewart wrote:
>> It is called as a prelude to when you would start again. Maybe
we should add a property along the lines of "i need to know when you
are going to stop calling me"...?
Yes, that would be useful for us in particular. I suggested
AUReset because that is the only thing in the current spec that is
close to what we need. But then that tends to dilute the meaning
of AUReset, resulting in different hosts assuming they can use it
in different ways (similar to the confusion with AU bypass which we
discussed a while back).
The problem, of course, is the chicken-and-egg issue where even if
you add it, we have to get hosts to adopt it before we can count on
it, and this sort of thing is always a hard sell if it isn't
required for host-based plugins.
Yes, I think that is a fair enough assessment. Part of the issue
here is that we are already seeing Reset not being implemented
correctly.
Agreed. Of course the issue then for plugin developers is that we
have to handle inconsistent host behavior like this and try to do the
right thing in every host. If the spec were clarified and hosts were
required to adhere to it more closely, it could help clean up these
kinds of issues. That's another reason I think an "auhostval" would
be useful. Host mfgs don't necessarily have the motivation to make
changes based on feedback from plugin developers; but if there's a
tool from Apple which points the finger at them, that's another
story. Just like how as AU plugin developers, we have to make sure
that our plugins pass auval - we can't just ignore errors.
If we alllow for this "call me all the time" notion, then we'll
have a bunch of AUs just setting this and being done. Once that is
set on one AU in a chain, all have to be called, so it quickly
devolves into killing the ability for a host to manage load.
Well, I understand the argument, but in some cases there is a valid
reason for wanting this behavior, besides just being lazy. A host
could certainly display a message informing the user that they might
not get optimum host CPU usage when a plugin requests this mode, and
they can list the plugin. Then it's up to the plugin manufacturer to
explain why they require that mode, so they better have a good
reason. That should be enough incentive for people to not request
this behavior arbitrarily. There could also be a warning or
something in auval for plugs which requst this behavior.
Jim
_______________________________________________
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