I think OSCx should be deprecated,
left around only for compatibility with old patches.
Seems to me Martin's OSC stuff does the same and more than the orginal OSCx, so keeping them both around makes little sense.
Especially when it means giving the (hopefully more used) routeOSC a name like set_route.
Actually I think we could do:
net/tcpsend net/tcpreceive net/udpsend net/udpreceive osc/route osc/pack osc/unpack
..b.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Piotr Majdak wrote:
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?
These are really great, it should make things much more flexible.
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...
I think it might make more sense to make a separate library for these objects. But if they are based on libOSC, then they could be integrated. [OSCroute] and [routeOSC] in the same package sounds a bit odd to me. Perhaps [routeOSC] could be renamed to soemthing like [set_route].
.hc
"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list