Re[2]: [Octal-dev] porting thoughts

[ccastiglione]

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    Re: [Octal-dev] porting thoughts
Author: Neil Nelson <address@hidden>
Date:       6/16/00 7:10 AM

"Bullwinkle J. Moose" wrote:
>> 
>> If the Backend and the interface are separated to that degree, it would 
>> be possible for each to follow along on its own development track, so 
>> the backend could get at least close to 1.0 status by summer's end

[Neil Nelson]
>Bullwinkle, I am looking forward to your apparently thorough recoding of 
>the Octal system.
>
>... We have words, and then we have deeds.

No doubt...but since this thread is a response to Dave's solicitation for ideas
w/r/t making Octal as portable as possible, it seems to me that words are an
appropriate response.  No?  Anyway, thanks for the sanity check.  I'm not
claiming that complete separation of the audio engine and UI into different
process spaces is the most expedient design, just that it's a good, flexible
design that would make porting to many different platforms go more smoothly.

Like I said in my reply to Bullwinkle, I suggest continuing on the path of
implementing a GTK in-process GUI for the end of the summer, in order to make
the goal of reaching beta by then possible.  At the same time, it might make
sense to keep the client-server approach tucked away somewhere as an idea for
future releases.

chris