Re: [Jsynthlib-devel] some core update

[<tt_...@gm...>]

Hi Hiroo,

Hiroo Hayashi wrote:
>>To answer your question I propose to hold the method just for this
>>reason. And I think it doesn't hurt to hold the "delete" method.
>>But as you already mentioned this isn't a forcible reason.  An user,
>>who want to "clean" a bank patch, can copy a default patch to the
>>bank to overwrite an unwanted patch.
> 
> 
> I think it is more consistent for IBankPatch.delete(int) to put a single
> patch which createPatch() method of the bank driver uses.
> BankPatch.createPatch() is an abstract method. core code cannot not know
> what single patch is filled in by createPatch().  What we can do is to
> document on IBankPatch.delete(int) method.

I don't know if I understood you right.
Yes, IBankPatch.delete should replace the desired bank patch place with a new, default single patch.

Is it possible to evaluate the appropriate SinglePatch.createPatch() method from the bank patch?
I think it should be possible, because BankDriver knows its Device and the singleSysexID of the single patch, which it's holding.

If yes, we could use the single patch createPatch() method to create the patch and then we can use the BankDriver.putPatch(Patch bank, 
Patch single, int patchNum) method to replace the old patch from the bank patch.
Is it clear?

BTW, maybe "erasePatch(int)" is a better name for this purpose than delete(int).

Bye
Torsten