View Single Post
Old 03-05-2019, 03:57 PM   #2700
MalcolmG
Human being with feelings
 
MalcolmG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
We've discussed this concept before (like, a gajillion pages back ), it is probably a good idea to make the syntax more verbose with a dedicated feedback set of parameters.

By doing something like that, we could eliminate the Feedback variants of the controls.

Maybe syntax something like:

Code:
Play Press 90 5e 7f Feedback 90 5e 7f 90 5e 00
Feel free to tell me I'm overthinking this, but I've been thinking about the separation of concerns off and on since yesterday.

There is currently a nice separation between the structure of the controller (ie. what buttons/faders/etc we have) in the mst, and the behaviour (ie. what we want to happen when we press a button) in the axt/fxt. This allows me to take MixMonkey's mst for the bcf and use it, in theory unchanged, while still controlling my custom behaviour separately.

So the question is, where do the colours belong?

Where I'm leaning is that the colours relate to the behaviour, not the button. Maybe I want the button associated with the Record arm action to be flashing red when it is armed. So that would tell me it should be in the axt/fxt. The fact that this control supports feedback is in the mst, but the details of what form that feedback should take (ie. colour, flashing, etc) possibly belongs in the axt/fxt.

That does leave us with the issue that maybe that behaviour is associated with a control that doesn't support feedback, in which case it'll be ignored, but conceptually it seems that is where it belongs.

Not raising this as a blocker, as the fallback of just editing the mst is not a showstopper, but it does kinda go against the separation so far.

Thoughts?
MalcolmG is offline   Reply With Quote