I forward this to pd-list because I don't know why it got sent to me in private, I don't see any possible objection to sending it to pd-list, and I'm not quite knowledgeable in neither OSC nor MAX.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:42:49 +0200 From: Leandro da Mota Damasceno lemota@gmail.com To: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] OSC messages without /
Let's think in a different way... Why would I just use a udpreceive and a route in Max/MSP to make it work and why doesn't it work with PD? What does the udpreceive does differently for the output in Max/MSP? I am guessing it was an internal unpackOSC that does not care about /. Is that it?
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote: On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Leandro da Mota Damasceno wrote:
Like, a lot. It just ignores the messages because of the lack of the "/". Since the standalone application was made by Max/MSP
users, they ignored this apparent limitation on PD. In fact, I tried in Max/MSP with a udpreceive object linked to a route and
it already got me results.
What does the OSC standard say about leading slashes ?
_______________________________________________________________________ | Mathieu Bouchard ------------------------------ Villeray, Montréal, QC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
From: Leandro da Mota Damasceno lemota@gmail.com
Let's think in a different way... Why would I just use a udpreceive and a route in Max/MSP to make it work and why doesn't it work with PD? What does the udpreceive does differently for the output in Max/MSP? I am guessing it was an internal unpackOSC that does not care about /. Is that it?
i think, that max's [udp*] objects simply allows to use messages that are not OSC, whereas the Pd objects enforce a strict OSC-adherence.
usually, the way to implement communication standards is:
the simplest way to fix the problem is: adhere to the standard!
so if you can change the max-patch, i would advise you to simply add a leading "/" to the messages you send.
fgmsdft IOhannes
Hi
I would like to apologize for the private emails. it's that when I reply to the messages they go to the author, not the list. Weird. that's not what happens in other mailing lists...
So, I have tried to fix the standalone as jasch suggested, but i got all sorts of error messages. I would have to work almost from scratch and if my knowledge on PD is still in beginner level, my knowledge of max/MSP is almost null. Unfortunately, I'm on a deadline to have this thing working, so I need a workaround by next week.
So right now, I'd rather not mess with the standalone and working on a new version by myself in a few weeks from now. Martin, I can send you the patch, but I'm afraid it won't be any helpful for this case, since it depends on dating coming from the standalone. I can give it to you, of course, if you want. But I think it's pretty much what has been described here. The best solution for now I think would be to have a way to get ordinary messages through udp. No OSC standards.
Best,
Leandro
2010/10/22 IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
From: Leandro da Mota Damasceno lemota@gmail.com
Let's think in a different way... Why would I just use a udpreceive and a route in Max/MSP to make it work and why doesn't it work with PD? What does the udpreceive does differently for the output in Max/MSP? I am guessing it was an internal unpackOSC that does not care about /. Is that it?
i think, that max's [udp*] objects simply allows to use messages that are not OSC, whereas the Pd objects enforce a strict OSC-adherence.
usually, the way to implement communication standards is:
- be strict in what you send (here the max-objects are faulty)
- be lax in what you accept (here the pd-objects are faulty)
the simplest way to fix the problem is: adhere to the standard!
so if you can change the max-patch, i would advise you to simply add a leading "/" to the messages you send.
fgmsdft IOhannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkzBxFkACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvS9xgCgrQZppWIAHu60uDEIqQ3MJCUh GrMAn0Wjhr77zAusMq9vVOu8QLX/dP2R =w3Q7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 09:40 +0200, Leandro da Mota Damasceno wrote:
Hi
I would like to apologize for the private emails. it's that when I reply to the messages they go to the author, not the list. Weird. that's not what happens in other mailing lists...
So, I have tried to fix the standalone as jasch suggested, but i got all sorts of error messages. I would have to work almost from scratch and if my knowledge on PD is still in beginner level, my knowledge of max/MSP is almost null. Unfortunately, I'm on a deadline to have this thing working, so I need a workaround by next week.
So right now, I'd rather not mess with the standalone and working on a new version by myself in a few weeks from now. Martin, I can send you the patch, but I'm afraid it won't be any helpful for this case, since it depends on dating coming from the standalone. I can give it to you, of course, if you want. But I think it's pretty much what has been described here. The best solution for now I think would be to have a way to get ordinary messages through udp. No OSC standards.
Sorry in case I missed it, but did the abstraction I sent you recently not work? I don't think, that it should be too difficult to find a way to deal with the faulty OSC messages in Pd (so that you don't have to touch the standalone max/msp patch).
Roman
It partially worked. It seems to be something ALMOST there, but I got an error message. I posted a few days ago. But it's definitely the best solution right now
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 09:40 +0200, Leandro da Mota Damasceno wrote:
Hi
I would like to apologize for the private emails. it's that when I reply to the messages they go to the author, not the list. Weird. that's not what happens in other mailing lists...
So, I have tried to fix the standalone as jasch suggested, but i got all sorts of error messages. I would have to work almost from scratch and if my knowledge on PD is still in beginner level, my knowledge of max/MSP is almost null. Unfortunately, I'm on a deadline to have this thing working, so I need a workaround by next week.
So right now, I'd rather not mess with the standalone and working on a new version by myself in a few weeks from now. Martin, I can send you the patch, but I'm afraid it won't be any helpful for this case, since it depends on dating coming from the standalone. I can give it to you, of course, if you want. But I think it's pretty much what has been described here. The best solution for now I think would be to have a way to get ordinary messages through udp. No OSC standards.
Sorry in case I missed it, but did the abstraction I sent you recently not work? I don't think, that it should be too difficult to find a way to deal with the faulty OSC messages in Pd (so that you don't have to touch the standalone max/msp patch).
Roman
Sorry, I definitely missed your reply then. Can you post the error message again?
Roman
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 02:46 +0200, Leandro da Mota Damasceno wrote:
It partially worked. It seems to be something ALMOST there, but I got an error message. I posted a few days ago. But it's definitely the best solution right now
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 09:40 +0200, Leandro da Mota Damasceno wrote: > Hi > > > I would like to apologize for the private emails. it's that when I > reply to the messages they go to the author, not the list. Weird. > that's not what happens in other mailing lists... > > > So, I have tried to fix the standalone as jasch suggested, but i got > all sorts of error messages. I would have to work almost from scratch > and if my knowledge on PD is still in beginner level, my knowledge of > max/MSP is almost null. Unfortunately, I'm on a deadline to have this > thing working, so I need a workaround by next week. > > > So right now, I'd rather not mess with the standalone and working on a > new version by myself in a few weeks from now. Martin, I can send you > the patch, but I'm afraid it won't be any helpful for this case, since > it depends on dating coming from the standalone. I can give it to you, > of course, if you want. But I think it's pretty much what has been > described here. The best solution for now I think would be to have a > way to get ordinary messages through udp. No OSC standards. >
Sorry in case I missed it, but did the abstraction I sent you recently not work? I don't think, that it should be too difficult to find a way to deal with the faulty OSC messages in Pd (so that you don't have to touch the standalone max/msp patch). Roman