Main > Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Forum
Plugins: Document API for JukePlugSys
Space Fractal:
--- Quote from: loadman on January 04, 2008, 07:45:31 pm ---Cool Layout
--- Quote ---JukeGetPluginInfo(Title$[256], Album$[256], Title$[256], UTF8)
--- End quote ---
Is this a mistake? Should it not be something like:
JukeGetPluginInfo(Name$[256], Aithor$[256], Version$[256], UTF8)
--- End quote ---
ops. Corrected.
One command changed again, but just added a new argument (Add2Queue).
unclet:
--- Quote ---If we are adding routines that will not be supported we might as well be making our own plugins this is why we need to agree on a set standard that we would all implement so the plugin fits that standard and would work with all the software. There are other routines as well .....
--- End quote ---
I do not plan on implementing everything in Space Fractal's list anyway so this is why I did not understand why adding other routines would be a big deal. My software does not support credits or tags, does not have it's own screensaver and also uses my own developed database system for storing and retrieving information. As a result, those routines related to all of this stuff will not be supported by my software.
Lets just say all of our jukebox software supports everything in Space Fractal's list. I would expect eventually someone is going to ask me to add a plugin routine which is specific to my software only. If they release this plugin, then it will not work with any other jukebox software anyway. My point is ..... eventually all of the plugins which are going to be made probably will not be able to be used with other jukebox software evenbtually. Perhaps right at the beginning they will be standard enough to be used with any jukebox software, but I bet as they become more sophisticated over a short time then they will become jukebox specific anyways.
As a result, I thought the point of Space Fractal's list was to simply come up with a standard set of routine names which any jukebox software could use since the name and interface would be standardized. Having a website (like you proposed) would be helpful is it included a spreadsheet listing each plugin standardized routine name and parameters along with which jukebox software supports it. It could then be up to the plugin author to make sure their plugin can be used with multiple jukebox software or not.
If this is not the intent of Space Fractal's effort, then I do not think my software can support all of what is listed.
Space Fractal
I would prefer not to have to write a Command Event file ....... I understand what you are trying to do, but I would rather have individual routines for each plugin function such as:
JukeAppMute(on/off)
JukeQueueSongRemoved(queueLocation)
JukeQueueSongUserDelete(queueLocation)
JukeQueueSongMoved(oldlocation, newlocation)
JukeQueueSongAdded(name, artist, album, queueLocation)
JukeAppPartyLock(on/off)
JukeAppAttractMode(on/off)
JukeAppPageFlip(left/right)
etc... etc... etc...
This seems a lot easier to maintain and much more clear to me.
loadman:
--- Quote from: unclet on January 04, 2008, 08:52:10 pm ---the intent of Space Fractal's effort, then I do not think my software can support all of what is listed.
--- End quote ---
I agree in part. The idea of having a standard 'in my eyes' is so that a plug-in was to make life easier for the plug-in writer. Sure inevitably the standard will be broken, but if the standard is similar at least, porting it will be trivial.
I don't think that Jukebox software writer should be forced to support all functions. But the one they do support should conform to the standard. I think as smart plug-in authors we can use the functions supported the best we can.
So keep the list I say ;)
Barry Barcrest:
I just thought it would be good to only functions we all agreed we would support. I only say this because if a plugin is released to support this standard then it should work in all software that says it supports this standard.
If we are not going to do this then we don't need a name for any type of standard or even a standard list of functions.
I'm torn because i agree with uncleT in that i don't want some of the functions above to be used in my juke and i have stuff that spacefractal and uncleT probably don't want. However i would also like any plugin made to work across the board.
I don't really know how this is going to turn out but hopefully you at least have an idea of what i am trying to say about having a standard.
Space Fractal:
Hi unclet.
I known freebox and MultiJuke support all. but....
I think not all features need to been software, if it NOT needed by application. If credits is not needed, it no need to have a plug in using that. They search for other plugins for other info. Credits is acutely very Small features which might been good for a LCD plug in (which a configuration of that could disable that feature if not needed).
I also doesn't care how you read your tags or they are pulled from directory (mine example can even disabled id3 tags). Plugins is never read ed from the database file. They stored deficient. Instead you should simply sent these info from your database as strings you allready use for displayed for your user.... If Special is not used (which MultiJuke does NOT support) is not used, just send a empty string to it. It completely fine. Even In MultiJuke it might send even empty album strings.... Might be I should remove that speciel tag$?
For database naming, for your software it should been "Albums" and "Movie" if I can see correct? In Freebox it would been "Albums", "Movies" and "Karaoke", It all. It not the database filename it self, but what the user selected in your software.
Otherwise this is why I created this thread. Something I should change?
Give any idea what I should change? Should I rename screensaver to something other? Like Idle detect or such?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version