4 Oct
2003
4 Oct
'03
5:35 p.m.
On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 19:03, Paul Davis wrote:
Yeah, maybe. But they may all seem reasonable requests from
the point of
view of a developer who does it for free.
:(
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
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. 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.