Haha! MPI is an old C library for doing threaded applications. I've never
had to use it and it sounds complicated. ;)
Interesting! I have to admit to not using Chuck in a while; are
.stringify() and .destringify() built in or did you implement those? What
does the string version of a complex data type actually look like?
If it works for you, it's a working solution. I tend to favor getting
things working before trying to optimize.
-mike
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 19:13 Gonzalo <gonz...@dense13.com> wrote:
> I didn't know what MPI was, just had a quick check (only got the gist of
> it). I'm learning a lot of things through Chuck. :) I think it would be
> interesting, but might be a bit tricky to implement with chuck? I don't
> know enough though, just wondering.
>
> My approach might have been a bit clumsy. I had two situations to solve:
>
> - Sending an array of primitives of an unknown length. This is
> relatively easy to solve, adding all the args to the OscMessage in a loop.
>
> - Sending a complex type that includes mixed primitive types. This was a
> bit trickier, and some conversion needs to happen anyway when using time
> or dur.
>
> My (probably a bit inefficient) solution was to .stringify and
> .destringify my objects (using Tokenizer), and then just sending a
> string over OSC. It's a bit delicate/error prone, but it works, and once
> I've added those methods to a class, it becomes quite easy to use, for
> the actual communication. For instance, to transfer myObject would look
> something like this:
>
> // The sender. Sets up an OscOut, then:
> oscOut.start("my/adress/pattern");
> oscOut.add(myObject.stringify());
> oscOut.send();
>
>
> // The receiver. Gets an OscMsg, then:
> if (oscMsg.address == "...") {
> oscMsg.getString(0) => string stringifiedVersion;
> MyClass.destringify(stringifiedVersion) @=> MyClass myObject;
> }
>
> I've also encapsulated the sender part into a method to be able to
> simply write:
>
> this.response("my/adress/pattern", myObject);
>
> Is this a decent approach? The type conversion to/from string can be a
> bit fiddly, but it seems to work. One thing I like is that complex types
> composed of other complex types are easy to (de)stringify, calling their
> children's methods.
>
> In the spirit of doing things the "wrong" way... ;) (I like that!)
> Gz
>
>
>
> On 28.08.18 07:31, mike clemow wrote:
> > Hey that's great!
> >
> > Do you think it's worth building a library and standard framework around
> > sending/receiving those types of messages over OSC? A sort of Chuck/OSC
> > version of Message Passing Interface. Or do you think that OSC is
> > general enough to do the job all by itself?
> >
> > Curious what your learnings were!
> >
> > Congrats!
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > --
> > Michael Clemow
> > he/him/his
> > Artist/Composer/Sound Designer
> > http://michaelclemow.com <http://michaelclemow.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 5:03 AM Gonzalo <gonz...@dense13.com
> > <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Quick wrap up of this thread. I did what Mike suggested, and it works
> > great, thanks for the pointers! It was a bit of work getting to
> > transfer
> > all the required data structures properly via OSC, but worth the
> > effort. :)
> >
> >
> > On 16.08.18 10:28, mike clemow wrote:
> > > Hey!
> > >
> > > Been a long time since I posted here. In the spirit of doing
> > things the
> > > "wrong" way (which is what we're all about, right? ;) You _might_
> > > consider architecting your app using two (or more) concurrent
> > instances
> > > of ChucK; one with your synthesis stuff, and one doing your heavy
> > > computation. The one doing the math could be set up to have a
> > local OSC
> > > API for sending the parameters in and your other code could just
> > wait on
> > > the response (advancing time in the main chuck instance, while the
> > > calculations are being done elsewhere). You would have to have
> some
> > > structure around the communications, but there are ways to make
> that
> > > easier with functors (paging Michael Heuer).
> > >
> > > The good thing about this is that you get to take advantage of
> your
> > > computer's multiple processors, since Chuck is single-threaded
> > (last I
> > > checked). Besides, if your calculations are that intense, what's
> > another
> > > couple of milliseconds for OSC communication? Plus, your
> > calculations
> > > might run faster this way... maybe.
> > >
> > > Or don't consider that because it's crazy. ;) Fwiw, I've
> > definitely run
> > > into applications that required multiple Chuck instances talking
> > to each
> > > other, although usually I'm trying to use multiple sound cards
> > > simultaneously. I've also abused named pipes in service of
> > > inter-application communications, although I really don't
> > recommend that.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Clemow
> > > he/him/his
> > > Artist/Composer/Sound Designer
> > > http://michaelclemow.com <http://michaelclemow.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:39 PM Gonzalo <gonz...@dense13.com
> > <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com>
> > > <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just did a quick test putting 1::samp all over the place
> > :), but so
> > > far no joy. But this is interesting, I'll explore it properly
> > when I
> > > have a bit more time. If I can locate where most of the time
> > gets used,
> > > I can focus on that. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Gonzalo
> > >
> > > On 16.08.18 01:36, Jack Atherton wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > Shreds block when you don’t advance time. If you don’t
> > advance time,
> > > > then ChucK assumes you need all the current computation
> > for the next
> > > > audio sample. Is there a place during your long
> > computation where
> > > you
> > > > could wait one sample every so often (1::samp => now;)? For
> > > example, in
> > > > the body of a loop.
> > > >
> > > > Jack
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:38 AM Gonzalo
> > <gonz...@dense13.com <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com>
> > > <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com>>
> > > > <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com>
> > <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com <mailto:gonz...@dense13.com>>>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm working on a big project (www.whole-play.com
> > <http://www.whole-play.com>
> > > <http://www.whole-play.com>
> > > > <http://www.whole-play.com>), tons of classes, tons
> > > > of calculations happening at various points. My
> problem is
> > > that some of
> > > > these calculations take too long, up to a few seconds.
> I
> > > thought if I
> > > > run them in their own shred, the main shred would be
> > > unaffected, but
> > > > it's not the case, and the music stops during those
> > > processes. Maybe
> > > > I'm
> > > > doing something wrong. I can't post sample code
> > because it's many
> > > > classes interacting, but I thought maybe someone has
> > ideas on
> > > how to
> > > > tackle this issue?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Gonzalo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://dense13.com
> > > > http://www.whole-play.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > chuck-users mailing list
> > > > chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>
> > > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>>
> > > > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>
> > > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>>>
> > > >
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > chuck-users mailing list
> > > > chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>
> > > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>>
> > > >
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://dense13.com
> > > http://www.whole-play.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > chuck-users mailing list
> > > chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>
> > > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>>
> > > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > chuck-users mailing list
> > > chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>
> > > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://dense13.com
> > http://www.whole-play.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > chuck-users mailing list
> > chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > <mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu>
> > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > chuck-users mailing list
> > chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> >
>
> --
> http://dense13.com
> http://www.whole-play.com
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>
--
Michael Clemow
Artist/Composer/Sound Designer
http://michaelclemow.com
_______________________________________________
chuck-users mailing list
chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
