Thank you very much for looking at this.
I am not sure how to speak on the removal of functions but if this is
working can it be committed by you?
Thanks!
Andreas Persson wrote:
> On 2011-09-27 11:16, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
>> On Tuesday 27 September 2011 00:26:29 Christopher Cherrett wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> We have a feature that sends all patch or program changes in a song to
>>> linuxsampler at one time.
>>>
>>> The reason for our patch was to couple the bank and the program changes
>>> so that they did not get disconnected.
>>>
>>> What was happening was LS was loosing what bank belonged to what patch
>>> and we were no able to load successfully everything we wanted.
>>>
>>> Our patch couples the two and solves the issue.
>>
>> Andreas, I remember you had something on your mind about this patch a
>> while
>> ago. Can you now remember what it was? Or was it another patch that
>> Christopher mentioned in the past?
>
> It was this patch, but I don't quite remember what my thoughts were.
> Maybe it was just that I never looked deeply enough on the patch to
> understand it correctly. I'll try again now:
>
> First, the patch is a bit badly formatted (tabs instead of white
> spaces, trailing white spaces, old code commented instead of removed,
> "added by" comments). I've cleaned it up and attach the new version.
>
> There are really two different changes in the patch. First the move of
> GetMidiBankLsb/GetMidiBankMsb calls from the disk thread back to the
> calling thread. I like that change. Maybe as Christian already said,
> it would have been more readable to add separate parameters for bank
> msb and lsb instead of merging them into a uint32, but I can live with
> it.
>
> The other change is kind of similar. The call to PrepareLoadInstrument
> is moved from the calling thread to the InstrumentManagerThread. I
> think I understand this change too, and agree that it is a good one.
> But after this change maybe we should remove the PrepareLoadInstrument
> method and instead let LoadInstrument take the filename and index as
> parameters?
>
> As the first change removes the call to SetMidiProgram, GetMidiProgram
> will not return the correct value anymore. That doesn't matter
> currently, as GetMidiProgram is never called. Should we remove those
> two functions to avoid future confusion?
>
> /Andreas
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
> definitive record of customers, application performance, security
> threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
> sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxsampler-devel mailing list
> Linuxsampler-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Linuxsampler-devel mailing list
Linuxsampler-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel
