Ok, it looks like I was misunderstanding the way how the [send] / [receive] is working.
But then I am still wondering why I got a lot of performance boost after replacing the [send] / [receive] with wired connections?
Ingo
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] Im Auftrag von IOhannes m zmölnig Gesendet: Samstag, 1. Oktober 2011 18:18 An: pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] Fwd: Variable number of objects?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/01/2011 04:48 AM, Ingo wrote:
Every [receive] will have to check if any [send] message is meant to be
for
this particular [receive]. It will have to check if the header of the
[send]
matches the header of the [receive] until the first character doesn't
match
anymore. Then it will abort checking and the next [receive] will start checking, and so on ... I can't see how this can be done without taxing the cpu.
this is not how send/receive work in Pd. in general, Pd's messaging system works in a "push" manner, where data is pushed from one object to the next, rather than a "pull" manner, where an object requests a message from the previous one.
therefore, [receive] need not care which [send]s are attached to it.
then, [send] need not search for attached [receive]s either, because the send-symbol will maintain a linked list of all attached receivers. going through the linked list for dispatching a message is quite fast.
gfdstm IOhannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk6HPTEACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQ8bQCfStNUi4fxyCOe2ZK3uvHtN7BG p+oAoNqIIRG/oaeeD7Qjoi2mmgkNXcZV =Chc9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list