On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 05:44:39PM +0200, IOhannes m zm?lnig wrote:
Am 8. Juni 2021 17:05:13 MESZ schrieb Miller Puckette via Pd-list pd-list@lists.iem.at:
P.S. maybe 'sendto' would be clearer - 'to' could be misunderstood as just setting a return port/addr for a later 'send' (which I think would make netreceive -u unnecessarily stateful).
i think 'sendto' only makes sense as [sendto example.com 6000 10 20( that is: specifying both target and data in a single message (as the name is so close to 'send'). I think this is what you want to do anyhow.
I wonder about efficiency though: each 'sendto' would trigger a host lookup, which is probably cached by the OS, but even so might still be rather costy.
mfg.fsd.sgj IOhannes
I think usually you'd use this for replying to incoming messages in which case you'd already have the IP addr. And if you do indeed have a hostname, I think it would be unwise to cache the IP adress resolution in the application (it might change).
Yes, I was imagining "sendto" combining port, address, and message all in one.
cheers M