I think the more generic object makes more sense, the most flexible that works with multiple devices. For the end user experience (wanting each axis come out of a different outlet) Then a a set of abstractions for those devies using the generic object could be made.
Still have a "tablet" object, acts just the same way, but can easy be changed (at the patch level) to a mouse object...
my 2 cents.
B.
----- Original Message ----- From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@eds.org Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 11:14 am Subject: Re: [PD] wacom usb tablet as controller ?
The problem here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you would then need to have different abstractions for each platform, since the various event interfaces are different. Then the patches built with this system would be platform-specific. Unless there was a cross-platform event object that hides the differences.
.hc
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 bbogart@ryerson.ca wrote:
zen
\
\
\[D[D[D[D
Good point,
I think the less externals that duplicate functionality the better.
I'm very glad you are going for cross-platform.
I know very little about the hid interfaces, so my view is utterly from a user perspective (a user that already relies many different externals!)
What about an object that uses a creation argument to drive the type of input device. 1 for mouse, 2 for joystick for example. then the outlets are created based on the creation argument, according the number of dimensions of the device.
Then the abstraction just takes care of setting the type of device and routing the outlet appropriatly. (if you even need an abstraction at this level)
Just some more ideas.
B
On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 08:15 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: