Hi Roman,
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 12:09 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
may ask, why you are asking? i mean, are you simply interested in having a set of pure abstractions for your own use or is there an aim to create a publicly accessible collection?
The reason I ask is that I am working on a project called Integra (www.integralive.org, wiki.integralive.org). We have developed an 'abstraction layer' (libIntegra) for wrapping pieces of functionality in an environment-neutral way, and managing parameter storage. The point of our work is that we don't want to re-invent the wheel wrt the actual processing (we don't want to write another Pd, or ChucK, or Csound, or SuperCollider etc), we just want to leverage existing functionality. Our first proof-of-concept has been done with Pd under-the-hood using our integra_pd_bridge. You can make Integra modules that communicate with libIntegra via the integra_pd_bridge, simply by adding an 'adapter' to an existing Pd patch.
The reason why I asked for existing 'purepd' abstractions, is that we want to start building a library of modules (a module consists of an implementation (the Pd bit), a definition (a fixed set of data *about* the module), and a set of instance data (the module's state, which we store in XML and then in an online database). See also db.integralive.org (very beta!)
I would like to leverage existing work as much as possible, and then feed back into community efforts. At the moment it's looking like we will start by taking some of the pdmtl abstractions and making them 'purepd' if possible. It isn't essential for Integra modules to have no dependencies, but it is encouraged! Then we can feed the work back into the purepd 'project', so everyone can benefit.
Ultimately we will do a similar process with other environments, so that one could load the same Integra 'collection' in SuperCollider, or Pd, so long as the implementations are there.
the idea of creating a 'dsplib' was discussend at least once on this list, but did not end up with someone actually collecting all those abstractions. personally, i decided to contribute my own stuff to pdmtl, since a lot of the work of organizing and structuring such a library is already done there. i found it quite handy, that instead of thinking of any guidelines i could simply follow them.
Yes, pdmtl is a real inspiration. Great project!
otoh, i find it a bit a pitty, that pdmtl has so many dependencies. most of the time, my contributions don't use externals, though. feel free to use all of pdmtl stuff, that doesn't use externals and i would also be willing to assist with removing them in cases, where they are not necessarily needed. if your goal is to create an organized pure pd based and publicly accessible fx library, i could help you with porting my own stuff to your library.
Great! Well I'll be starting this over the next few days, so i'll be in touch as things move forward.
hm.. thinking about that: it actually would be nicer to find a way to flag all purepd stuff of pdmtl instead of porting all the purepd stuff into a new library.
Or maybe the other way around? Perhaps pdmtl could provide 'references' to purepd implementations, rather than holding them in their repository?
Jamie
hi,
pdmtl is compatible with the last release of pd-extended (0.40.3). only xsample / py (flext stuff) are not included in pd-extended. the sad thing is that people need to edit the lib to load tof and iemmatrix. i don't know why tof and iemmatrix are not in the list of loaded libs... hans?
jamie, what do you mean by "providing a reference to purepd implementations, rather than holding them in their repository". we use goto10 svn server, this way we don't need a pd-dev account to maintain pdmtl.
pat
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 13:47 -0400, patrick wrote:
jamie, what do you mean by "providing a reference to purepd implementations, rather than holding them in their repository". we use goto10 svn server, this way we don't need a pd-dev account to maintain pdmtl.
I guess (maybe) what i'm talking about isn't possible with svn alone. I think that using svn as 'user' tool for organising patches for download is a bit clumsy. What I would like to see is some kind of database-driven solution where patches can be tagged etc. That way you could maintain a netpd tag, which included patches that you don't necessarily maintain in your repository. Likewise you could have patches that you do maintain in your repository tagged purepd.
I would be very happy to set something like this up. I was a big fan of the pdb that (Iohannes?) set up, and it woudl be great to do a pdb 2.0, with more of a web 2.0 flavour.
Jamie
jamie, my diy collection has no licence, no need for credit., etc.. i'm more than happy for you to do whatever and use it.
Quoting hard off hard.off@gmail.com:
jamie, my diy collection has no licence, no need for credit., etc.. i'm more than happy for you to do whatever and use it.
each and every piece of software has a licence.
just because you haven't manually assigned a license, doesn't mean
that you have chosen the "no licence" option.
in fact, you have chosen a rather restrictive option, that protects
your copyrights.
a licence is nothing bad, esp. it is not a restriction. instead, it is
a way to declare and retract restrictions.
if you want people to be able to use your software without any
restrictions, you have to put your software under a licence that
allows them to do so.
if you want something really open, chose Public Domain.
fgmadsr IOhannes
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 04:09 +0200, zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Quoting hard off hard.off@gmail.com:
jamie, my diy collection has no licence, no need for credit., etc.. i'm more than happy for you to do whatever and use it.
each and every piece of software has a licence. just because you haven't manually assigned a license, doesn't mean
that you have chosen the "no licence" option.
<snip>
That's true, content defaults to 'all rights reserved' by the copyright holder -- the content author unless a license is supplied explicitly . However, by emailing me and writing "jamie, my diy collection has no licence, no need for credit., etc.. i'm more than happy for you to do whatever and use it." hard off is effectively supplying a license to me to use the software to do whatever I like.
That said, I think it would be great if the collection had a license.txt with a similar sentence inside it so that the Public Domain intentions of the author are clear to everyone.
best,
Jamie
Jamie Bullock wrote:
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 04:09 +0200, zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Quoting hard off hard.off@gmail.com:
jamie, my diy collection has no licence, no need for credit., etc.. i'm more than happy for you to do whatever and use it.
each and every piece of software has a licence. just because you haven't manually assigned a license, doesn't mean
that you have chosen the "no licence" option.<snip>
That's true, content defaults to 'all rights reserved' by the copyright holder -- the content author unless a license is supplied explicitly . However, by emailing me and writing "jamie, my diy collection has no licence, no need for credit., etc.. i'm more than happy for you to do whatever and use it." hard off is effectively supplying a license to me to use the software to do whatever I like.
definitely; i just wanted to make sure that people know that they have to make their wish to share explicit in order to make it all work.
it's a system of distrust, but its the system we live in.
fgmasdr IOhannes