Piotr Majdak wrote:
Hi Martin,
Martin Peach wrote:
I've posted source and dlls for [routeOSC], [packOSC], and [unpackOSC] here: http://puredata.info/Members/martinrp/OSCobjects
Could you shortly explain the differences between [routeOSC] and [OSCroute] from the OSCx package? And is [dumpOSC] comparable with [udpreceive]+[unpackOSC]?
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). The net objects can probably also be used to do telnet or email from within pd, without using python or scripts. I used different names for all of them so as not to break existing patches.
I'm little bit confused with all the different OSC externals from different packages...
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 :) The other libraries (e.g. liblo) for OSC seem to be in c++ which is harder to integrate with pd's c code.
Martin
thanks,
Piotr