1 Mar
2003
1 Mar
'03
2:59 p.m.
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 19:20:49 +0100
David Olofson <david(a)olofson.net> wrote:
On Saturday 01 March 2003 17.12, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[...]
If we do this on the right level, we can have both. We definitely
should have a standard graph description (and preset) file format
anyway, and all we need is a way for plugin authors to provide useful
subgraphs with their plugins.
I agree that this would be the way to go - a standard patch format would
allow sharing of such metaplugins. And a unique ID could be generated
from an MD5 of the patch file, if this was needed.
The host could wrap both 'atomic' (dll) plugins and patches so the user
would not need to know that a particular 'Plugin' was actually a patch.
-
Mike
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
then these
components must be built of other components...
i dont see a reason why one wants a big complex component
if it could be built from smaller components...
(other than performace)
Absolutely they must be built out of other components. The question
is: who does the building? I'm saying that the plugin designer
should be able to present a complex "plugin" which is actually a
ready-connected graph of simpler components. The alternative is for
the plugin designer to present a "bag of bits" for the user to
connect together.