[linux-audio-dev] GAP: Audio API again

[Marco Ballini]

On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 19:03, Paul Davis wrote:
> the license is part of the agenda.
>From my POV, the license and target plugin developers and users should
be the first item to be agreed with MMA.

> >I want an API that may be extensible ...
> >I want those extensions to be contributed ...
> >I want to develop open source plugins ...
> >I want to allow skilled company to write wonderful plugins ...
> >I certainly don't want to pay *any* money (at least to be payed:-) ...
> >I want to be involved in the design process, ...
> >What I want is an API with the spirit of free software ...
> 
> you seem to want a lot.
Yeah, maybe. But they may all seem reasonable requests from the point of
view of a developer who does it for free.
 
> look, most of the people on the GMPI list would love to be able to
> define the plugin API they use to meet all their own needs and
> desires. unfortunately, we've already seen the result of this approach
> - multiple API's most of which have identical core functionality and
> make life miserable for developers and users.
If, as for LADSPA we could define a *good* API that hosts will use,
the MMA could later accept it as a standard de facto.
LADSPA is simple (simpler than this new API) but it worked for it.
You and other developers on LAD developed it without the MMA.

> Great. Another API. Besides, the GNU project already has Octal, which
> probably overlaps with this very significantly.
In fact, I was thinking of plugins for Octal, which eventually could be
THE host (but it of course depends on how Octal will evolve).

> >a) Hope that MMA will reconsider the design phase.
> >b) Develop my own API (hopefully with other free software developers).
> >c) Don't care, and do other things in my free time.
> 
> i hope its (c). (a) is important because we've already seen how slow
> the requirements process is when its open to anyone on a mailing
> list. (b) is just going to make things more confusing for
> everyone. please wait for GMPI to fail first.
:(
This is the problem of free software, too many projects with same goals.
But hey, I'm doing it for free and for me, giving eventual results to
anyone who wants. I don't see in this sense why it is so negative.
I agree with you on the reasons for not creating a new API, I am only
not so happy with the fact that actual development will be done only by
MMA members.
I'm not so skilled like the developers you cited, but perhaps I can
contribute with some ideas I didn't see considered. I haven't done it
yet for the reasons I've written.

Marco