Re: [fluid-dev] Re: The 1.1.0 milestone

[Josh Green]

Hello Jimmy,

On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 15:56 -0700, jimmy wrote:
> It seems we are all looking forward to 2.0, while 1.0 is agreed as legacy 
> code base.
> 
> I don't know how far along the code refactoring (FS 2.0) is.  Can we get a 
> status update, or current functions available.  What's missing compare to 
> 1.0.9?
> 
> It may be better if we put more efforts to work toward the new 2.0 code and 
> get it to a somewhat fully functional equivalence of 1.0.9.  It would be a 
> waste of time to make changes to 1.0 code, only to have to redesign 
> everything because 2.0 won't be compatible at all.
> 
> Sure, the 2.0 code could be using libInstPatch and any other libraries, or 
> features that makes sense.  Let's get a way so folks can checkout the 2.0-dev 
> code first, new patches can be posted here before checked in to the code 
> repository by a couple of main contributors for now.  This way, folks can 
> try, or test out the new patches without checking out half-broken daily 
> updates.
> 
> Anyone who can't live with 1.0.9, and must have the current extra patches, 
> feel free to patch your own code.  Since 1.0.9+ won't be too active.
> 
> Just my thoughts.  If it makes sense, just put in your personal informal vote 
> so by next week we could have enough vote of confidence on where to put most 
> of our efforts next.
> 
> My vote is let's go for 2.0.
> 
> Jimmy
> 

I think I WAS of the same mind, as far as focusing on FluidSynth 2.0.
The question I didn't really ask myself, was how much of the goals I
envisioned with FluidSynth 2.0 could be applied to the 1.x code base and
still remain compatible.  I think the answer to that, is probably "a
lot".  In this sense, working to improve FluidSynth 1.x would not be a
waste of time and would lead towards 2.0.  I think if we just jump
headlong into 2.0, it would be another long development cycle and the
end result would be something that would not be compatible with existing
software.  Much of the work that would be put into improving the
existing FluidSynth code base, would likely directly benefit 2.0
development and therefore we could probably accomplish 2 things at once,
that is, work towards 2.0 AND make additional 1.x releases which have
improved functionality.

Having said that.  I feel it is good to have our sites on what 2.0 will
be.  I think the primary difference between 1.x and 2.0 will be the API.
At the moment I can't think of any other distinction that needs to be
made, although I imagine there will be limitations of the existing API
which mean that certain features and improvements are reserved for 2.0.
Working on 1.1.0 will help us all to identify those areas where the API
should be changed and allow us some time to get accustomed to working
together.

If someone has some examples of features or improvements which can't be
applied to 1.x without CHANGING the API or would be awkward to attempt
(NOTE: API additions are fine), I would like to hear about them.

One example of an area that needs improving, in regards to Swami, is the
SoundFont loader API.  I'm not certain how many other programs use this
portion of the API.  There is a lot of room for improvement on it though
(24 bit/floating point audio support and streaming, better optimized
generator assignment to voices, etc).  This could end up being a new
loader API, with the old one being marked as deprecated.

Thats my current thinking..  What do you guys think?

Best regards,
        Josh