On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 04:41:59PM +0100, Christoph Reichenbach wrote:
> As this is a notiecable architectural change, I'm wondering why you are
> taking this approach rather than the one we discussed in september
>
>(http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01788.html),
> where the MCI implementation itself would sit right behind the sound
> server API (rather than behind the sound output driver API, i.e. much
The main reason I see for not taking this route is that it would be
awfully nice if the MCI implementation could take advantage of the
midi_mt32/midi_mt32gm subsystems rather than having to reimplement the
wheel at that level. Plus toss in the likes of adlibemu, which
technically renders this discussion moot as it isn't midi-based.
But for that to happen, it would mean more drastic (not necessarily bad)
changes to the sound API. More than that -- It would mean a
re-design. Which probably won't really buy us anything in the end.
- Pizza
--
Solomon Peachy pizzaATfucktheusers.org
I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent. ICQ# 1318344
Patience comes to those who wait.
...It's not "Beanbag Love", it's a "Transanimate Relationship"...
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8SZkGysXuytMhc5ERAniIAJ4tPNZdSVxtiIzYoTaiHgsA2NYrewCeNTT0
D9PDx/220VQ8jwBGvno9XM4=
=xZHn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
