24 Sep
2003
24 Sep
'03
1:59 p.m.
I'm following the LADSPA and XAP discussions from the beginning.
I've some ideas about audio plugins I've been thinking about since 2001.
What I really wanted was an audio plugin API for:
- a music composition environment
- real-time music performances
All my ideas led to a sketch of an event-oriented API.
So many things are common to (what I read of) XAP that I wanted to join
the discussion, but unfortunately I had no time to do that.
I now have some free time and I would like to share my ideas with others
(a new API is a big effort).
So, what happened to XAP?
Is this list the right place for discussion on it?
Would it be better to add my ideas to "XAP spec - early scribbles"
(e-mail from Tim Hockin on 4 February 2003) or to put them in an
indipendent form?
Thanks for any answer,
- Marco
24 Sep
24 Sep
2:20 p.m.
So, what happened to XAP?
Is this list the right place for discussion on it?
Would it be better to add my ideas to "XAP spec - early scribbles"
(e-mail from Tim Hockin on 4 February 2003) or to put them in an
indipendent form?
discussion about it moved to the GMPI list. GMPI is an industry-wide
attempt to define a platform+vendor neutral music plugin API.
majordomo: gmpi-request(a)freelists.org
archives: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
2:33 p.m.
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 18:20, Paul Davis wrote:
discussion about it moved to the GMPI list. GMPI is an
industry-wide
attempt to define a platform+vendor neutral music plugin API.
Does this mean that
the decision process is driven by commercial
interests.
If yes, is there a place for an open API (maybe LGPL, but still to
define)?
Are they developing an API with the same philosophy of LADSPA?
How close is this new API to XAP?
3:06 p.m.
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 18:20, Paul Davis wrote:
its driven by a desire to *avoid* vendor/proprietary lockin. plugin
writers (and users) are tired of dealing with 5/6/7/8 different plugin
APIs. GMPI will eventually be controlled by the MIDI Manufacturers
Assoc, and is intended to be an open specification in the same way
that MIDI is.
discussion about it moved to the GMPI list. GMPI
is an industry-wide
attempt to define a platform+vendor neutral music plugin API.
Does this mean that
the decision process is driven by commercial
interests. 
3:24 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:18:45PM +0200, Marco Ballini wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 18:20, Paul Davis wrote:
We've been over this before. Search the linux-audio-dev archives
for GMPI.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Look! Up in the sky! It's QUOTTY FINGERS KID!
(random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)
discussion about it moved to the GMPI list. GMPI
is an industry-wide
attempt to define a platform+vendor neutral music plugin API.
Does this mean that
the decision process is driven by commercial
interests.
If yes, is there a place for an open API (maybe LGPL, but still to
define)?
Are they developing an API with the same philosophy of LADSPA?
How close is this new API to XAP? 
3:41 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:18:45PM +0200, Marco Ballini wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 18:20, Paul Davis wrote:
Partly, but many of the contributors are Free Software people, and IIRC the
final SDK will be released under a Free Software friendly licence.
discussion about it moved to the GMPI list. GMPI
is an industry-wide
attempt to define a platform+vendor neutral music plugin API.
Does this mean that
the decision process is driven by commercial
interests. Are they developing an API with the same philosophy of
LADSPA?
No, we allready have a LADSPA, its intended to include events and other
things that are missing form LADSPA.
How close is this new API to XAP?
Its still in the requirements phase, so I cant really say.
- Steve
10:45 p.m.
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 19:25, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:18:45PM +0200, Marco
Ballini wrote:
with "philosophy" I meant (sorry for
my english): designed to be an
"open" API. Maybe I'm wrong (and please correct me) but the the issues
regaurding future use and development of such an API are not only
related to the license but also with the design process.
Best regards
-Marco
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 18:20, Paul Davis wrote:
Partly, but many of the contributors are Free Software people, and IIRC the
final SDK will be released under a Free Software friendly licence.
discussion about it moved to the GMPI list. GMPI
is an industry-wide
attempt to define a platform+vendor neutral music plugin API.
Does this mean that
the decision process is driven by commercial
interests. Are they developing an API with the same
philosophy of LADSPA?
No, we allready have a LADSPA, its intended to include events and other
things that are missing form LADSPA.
2:36 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:44:43PM +0200, Marco Ballini wrote:
So, what happened to XAP?
GMPI:
http://aulos.calarts.edu/pipermail/music-dsp/2003-February/022272.html
Is this list the right place for discussion on it?
I think XAP has been put on hold. GMPI is a much more promising project,
though its progressing quite slowly.
- Steve
3:07 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:21:33PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:44:43PM +0200, Marco
Ballini wrote:
I've laid all my hopes on GMPI. If the GMPI process continues to hurt so
much, maybe XAP should progress asynchronously. It can always adapt to GMPI
later.
--
Notice that as computers are becoming easier and easier to use,
suddenly there's a big market for "Dummies" books. Cause and effect,
or merely an ironic juxtaposition of unrelated facts?
So, what happened to XAP?
GMPI:
http://aulos.calarts.edu/pipermail/music-dsp/2003-February/022272.html
Is this list the right place for discussion on
it?
I think XAP has been put on hold. GMPI is a much more promising project,
though its progressing quite slowly.
7533
days inactive
7533
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Marco Ballini -
Paul Davis -
Paul Winkler -
Steve Harris -
Tim Hockin