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.
Hi Jeremiah,I'm not sure what kind of feature you're describing. Is it that you want a long running Pd instanceon 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