[I replied to this at the time, but I think my reply ended up in the moderation black hole for some reason I don't quite understand]
On Tuesday 04 Oct 2005 00:59, Paul Davis wrote: > > It has been stated that the model should send updates to > > all clients except the one that originated a parameter change. > > never seen that stated. DSSI explicitly requires this behaviour for the host sending updates to plugin UIs. That requirement was the subject of some discussion at the time (see http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2004/07/0263.html in which Fons takes the same side of the debate as at present and Steve Harris argues for the other side). Dave Robillard wrote: > Generally when > given the choice I'll choose complexity in the client over complexity > in the engine any day. This is exactly the opposite of what DSSI aims for. The principle (which may or may not be correct) is that the host only has to be written once, and a bit of pain in the implementation won't prevent people from doing it, whereas the plugin UIs have to be written many times by lots of people and should therefore be made simpler at the cost of extra complexity in the host. FWIW I think the arguments on both sides have quite a bit of merit. One irony is that at the time of the above discussion, it would actually have been impossible for any DSSI host that used liblo to properly implement the requirement because liblo had no way to commnuicate the origin of an incoming message. We didn't notice that until a couple of months later when we discovered the reference host didn't work right. It's fixed now. > but, as i said, i am trying to phase this out in favor of a model > where there are no changes to the View until the Model sends a > notification. this is not easy to do and impossible where the view is a hardware fader, presumably -- as a DSSI UI could be. Chris
