IOhannes, sorry yes I meant "patch" as in a software engineering patch rather than a PD patch. Thanks for the info, I will get in touch with Miller and see if he still thinks it's a good idea.
Jonathan, yes that's exactly it. On 15/09/2016 4:21 AM, "Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list" pd-list@lists.iem.at wrote:
Hi Jeremiah, I'm not sure what kind of feature you're describing. Is it that you want a long running Pd instance on the rpi with the ability to connect/disconnect a _single_ GUI at will?
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 6:46 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig < zmoelnig@iem.at> wrote:
On 09/13/2016 09:24 AM, Jeremiah Rose wrote:
Do you think it's liakely that such a patch would be accepted by the maintainer?
which maintainer?
what i'm talking about is a middleware software (a standalone proxy), that handles the connections from both Pd-core and Pd-gui. this is possible. it has already been done (in a different context -"peer data"). back then i implemented the middleware as a Pd-patch. there is no maintainer who could accept anything.
if you are talking about modifying ("patching") the Pd-core so it would allow dis/connections from an independently started Pd-GUI, then I am the wrong person to ask: miller reads this list, so you could ask him directly.
btw, i seem to remember that at miller's last visit to Graz we talked about this very feature and he seemed to be in favour. so i guess, if a patch against Pd-core follows the coding style and is "not very" intrusive, chances are high that it might get included.
gmards
IOhannes
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list