Albert Santoni wrote: > I think I understand what my gut feeling was saying now. The temptation > is to divide the MIDI code up into upper and lower halves like a device > driver.
Well, this IS essentially a device driver. We're just using scripts and PortMidi C++ hooks to work with it instead of all C++ and system calls. (The scripting just makes it a "dynamic" device driver.) > scripts, etc). Maybe we'd call it MidiProcessor or something. The part I I'd call it MidiDeviceProcessor to denote that it's still tied to a specific device. Or call them MidiDevice (upper) and MidiDeviceIO (lower.) > processing) out of MidiDevice, and it gives us flexibility to swap out > both the device I/O layer (bottom half) or the event processing layer > (top half). Flexibility is good. Can't have too much of that, especially if it's easy to provide and doesn't incur much of a performance penalty. I would think this would also make it easier for Mixxx to eventually become a VJ app too, since you'd just swap in a new MidiDeviceVideoProcessor or something. What say you, Garth & Tom? Sincerely, Sean Pappalardo <<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->> This E-Mail message has been scanned for viruses and cleared by >>SmartMail<< from Smarter Technology, Inc. <<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Mixxx-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mixxx-devel
