On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:19:11PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > >On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:01:01PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > >> >I don't mind *IFF* the metadata file has a simple, human readable > >> >syntax (no XML please) that can be parsed line by line. > >> > >> no XML, and yes, parsable line by line, and yes, human readable. *but* > >> the plan should be to use the supplied library to get and set > >> values. nobody should be doing it themselves otherwise we end up with > >> an almighty mess. > > > >??? Not if the data format is specified. I will fiercely resist any > >standard that is defined as a library interface. > > I think this is a mistake. Although I know that X does have a protocol > at its core, I am convinced that the reason it has been so successful > (in addition to its feature set) is that it has had a single, standard > stable library interface. I don't know anyone now who *ever* writes X > protocol code, and I've never met anyone (except a few people I once > knew who worked on a commercial X server, and even that was more than > 15 years ago).
This is irrelevant. Xrm has nothing to do with the X protocal, and you can use it without having an X server. It's just a database manager that was originally designed to hold X resources, but it's general enough to use it for whatever you want. > Wrapping file formats in libraries allows the formats to change > without us forcing recompilation on anyone. Defining a file format and > believing we got it right is tantamount to a religious act > IMHO. Nobody ever gets it right first time. Even if you use a > framework like XML or xrm, you still have to define the contents. > > Its also been a *very* useful approach as JACK has evolved. We have > modified the protocol several times without requiring client > recompilation. This is an API, not a file format. > >The plugins I made for AMS have modulation inputs, and I don't see what's > > Take a side-chain compressor: how can a host know that one input is > for the "main signal" and the other is the side-chain? If you leave > all connections to the user (as in AMS, i think), this is discernible > by a human intelligence, but in something like ardour where the user > expects basic connectivity to be done for them, its a problem. > > >special about them. An we still have 20 + something hint bits... > > But that's the whole issue. Adding hint after hint after hint > ... every one requires a new header file. > One header file, yes, and then only if you want to support the new bits. -- FA
