On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 01:47 +0100, Bernat Arlandis i Mañó wrote:
> Specifically, on the modularization aspect I'd like to break FS down in
> several libraries that could build separately if needed. This libraries
> might be, guessing a bit: fluid-synth (the synthesis engine),
> fluid-soundfont (
Pedro:
Changes breaking the API compatibility, not only for FluidSynth but for any
ELF shared library (i.e., to be deployed in Linux), should require a change
in the SONAME internal attribute for the library. This is usually
accomplished changing the major version number.
I wasn't sure about th
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 09:27 -0500, Ebrahim Mayat wrote:
> By "break compatibility backwards", do you mean that old soundfont files
> could not be parsed successfully ?
>
> Perhaps you are talking about the linking of FS libraries to other
> programs like SWAMI, MAX/MSP and fluid~ ?
>
> Thanks
Hello Bernat,
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 13:41 +0100, Bernat Arlandis i Mañó wrote:
> This is concerning ticket #11.
>
> I'm thinking on a lot of changes to take FS forward as I review the
> source code and fix some things, but most of these changes would break
> compatibility backwards. Maybe we sh
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 13:41 +0100, Bernat Arlandis i Mañó wrote:
> This is concerning ticket #11.
>
> I'm thinking on a lot of changes to take FS forward as I review the
> source code and fix some things, but most of these changes would break
> compatibility backwards. Maybe we should think abou
Bernat Arlandis i Mañó wrote:
> This is concerning ticket #11.
>
> I'm thinking on a lot of changes to take FS forward as I review the
> source code and fix some things, but most of these changes would break
> compatibility backwards. Maybe we should think about making a branch for
> something that
Julien Claassen escrigué:
Hello Bernat!
How do you mean: breaking compatibility? Would commands no longer
work? Would you have a new syntax for the more complex parts of FS?
Could you explain a bit more, so the stupid user understands. Because
only then I could really think about it. General
Hello Bernat!
How do you mean: breaking compatibility? Would commands no longer work?
Would you have a new syntax for the more complex parts of FS? Could you
explain a bit more, so the stupid user understands. Because only then I could
really think about it. Generally I'd have no probelm with
This is concerning ticket #11.
I'm thinking on a lot of changes to take FS forward as I review the
source code and fix some things, but most of these changes would break
compatibility backwards. Maybe we should think about making a branch for
something that could be FS2.0. Fixes that break com
