On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc@rncbc.org> wrote:
On 04/04/2012 12:18 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote:
On 04/03/2012 07:04 PM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
now, i could suggest NSM API to be split in levels of compliance and
restrictiveness, so to speak:

- level 0 :- clients just store/retrieve their own private state from a
supplied and independent session sub-directory; no GUI File menu
restrictions; no file location restrictions, no symlinks, no juggling,
no dupes, no sh*t.

- level 1+ :- anything that (may progressively?) imposes each one the
mentioned non-restrictions of level 0.

How much more effort will it be in terms of coding, to implement
'level-1' versus 'level-0'?


speaking from qtractor pov.:

- level 0: minimal effort as it would be a probable and simple rephrasing and/or adaptation of the code already in place for jack-session; also, there's this osc branch somewhat lurking in svn to get readily merged and apply for the NSM/OSC interface.

- level 1+: pervasive change and effort; almost brand new application overhaul (iow. won't happen any time soon:) sorry.

Are you seriously saying that the equivalent of doing:

if ( nsm_is_active )
      save_here( file );
else
      save_there( file );

Would require a complete rewrite and overhaul of your application? Say you don't want to do it... That's fine. Say you don't like the NSM design--that's fine too. But don't just make up wild hyperbole out of laziness...