Hi Martin,
Martin Peach wrote:
Sure...[routeOSC] is based on [OSCroute] but the routes are settable after the object is created. It is also standalone in the sense that you don't need to load lib OSC to use it. It's basically the same code, cleaned up a bit. [unpackOSC] is based on [dumpOSC], again nearly the same thing but cleaned up and made independent of lib OSC. For instance the messages to the user use 'post' instead of printf and OSCerror or whatever it was. [packOSC] is based on [sendOSC] but doesn't do the network part. That can be handled by [udpsend] or [tcpsend] or possibly [comport] and [midiout] with some extra massaging of the lists they output. That makes the OSC objects transport independent as the spec intended (but nearly every implementation is hard-wired to use udp).
That's a nice thing. So, as far as I understand you, [packOSC] outputs something (a stream of messages, one message per byte?) which can be sent to a communication object such as [udpsend] or [comport]?
But, the oposite object to [packOSC], [unpackOSC] is hardcoded to UDP, like [sendOSC], right?
I used different names for all of them so as not to break existing patches.
That's a good idea. Thanks for watching the weird compatibility things :-)
I based them all on OSCx (the net objects are based on the [netsend] and [netreceive] objects inside pd), I consider them to be an improved version of OSCx but that's my opinion :)
I see it as an improvement too :-) Would you like to add your objects to the externals/OSCx directory in CVS? We could keep all the OSC stuff at one place...
br, Piotr