iiwusynth-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [iiwusynth-devel] FluidSynth release


From: Peter Hanappe
Subject: Re: [iiwusynth-devel] FluidSynth release
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:15:18 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1



Josh Green wrote:

Hi Josh,

I'm still curious whether we are shooting for API freeze or not for the
upcoming release.

Yes, we are. As soon as the API is fixed, I propose we do the name
change and call it a pre-release. In my mind I keep March 14th as
a goal although I don't dare to say it too loud considering the
poor progress I have been making lately. Also, I don't want to go over
this to lightly because the API may have to go a long way. That's why
things like the sample and preset callbacks should be in there so
you don't get stuck.

I started working with doxygen for the documentation, made a Doxyfile
for the configuration. I'd like doxygen to only analyse the public
header files but I don't seem to be able to get it running correctly.
doxygen ignores nearly everything in the headers. Any hint is welcome.


Also I remember one other todo item.. Peter mentioned
that the sfloader API could be changed to define the callbacks on a per
type basis rather than for each item. That would seem a bit cleaner,
although perhaps not absolutely necessary for this release.

I think that API change should be kept for the development version
after we released the first version. That changes are to big for the
current version.

There are other things I would like to fix (like replace the use of
iiwu_midi_event_t with the more generic iiwu_event_t). But again, the
changes are too important for the first release. Oh well.


To be honest I've backed off on doing any direct development on
FluidSynth, since I'm unsure of what the goals are, not necessarily
anyones fault, I'm sure ya'll are pretty busy. I was kind of expecting a
little more communication though.

Bug fixes that don't change the API are no problem. API changes are
delicate. New features should be avoided.

Did you get a chance to test the sample and preset callbacks? I'd
like to now if it's sufficient for you to get started with the sample
management. It's currently no ideal solution, I know.



Cheers,
Peter

Cheers.
        Josh







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]