Re: [Jsynthlib-devel] synth driver interface change proposal

[Hiroo H. <hir...@co...>]

Hi Rib,

Rib> > IPatchDriver.export(IPatch)         -> IPatch.export()
Rib> > IPatchDriver.send(IPatch, int, int) -> send(int, int)
Rib> ...
Rib> > ISingleDriver.play(IPatch) -> ISinglePatch.play()
Rib> > ISingleDriver.send(IPatch) -> ISinglePatch.send()
Rib> 
Rib> We've talked in the past about multiple drivers that use the same
Rib> patch format.  That's why I never proposed moving play and send to the
Rib> Patch.  I tried to keep everything that would be device dependent in
Rib> the driver. Although I don't know how often this happens and how
Rib> important it is to support.

Well, even now Patch class has 'driver' field.  The driver is used by
default for most usage.  A user can specify any driver by using 'Send
to ...", "Store to ...", or "Reassign" command.

You comment reminded me that I forgot to write one important thing.  The
current implementation does not change Patch.driver field value on 'Send
to ..." nor "Store to ...".  But I'd like to call IPatch.setDriver
method before calling ISinglePatch() as follows;

    protected void doit () {
        p.setDriver((IPatchDriver) driverComboBox.getSelectedItem());
        ((ISinglePatch) p).send();
        ...

This means these command change the Patch.driver field.  I believe this
is better behavior for most of cases.  If a users speechifies a driver,
he or she wants to use the same driver next time for the patch.

Note that the current implementation does not save driver information
when a library is saved into a file.  Every time a library is reloaded,
the first matching driver in the list of possible drivers is selected. 
The choice may not be good for users.  To solve this problem, we have to
save the driver information in library file.  This requires a new file
format.

I think a patch should have driver information.
-- 
Hiroo Hayashi