On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:16:40AM +0000, Steve Harris wrote: > Thanks, thats helpful. I have a number of things I'd like to use OSC for > (and I've heard plenty of other linux audio people talking about starting > to use it), but theres a few things that bug me about it: > > * Libraries not great. this seems solved by using the subset you're
for projects i was involved i used a free c++-library called libOSC++, to which i added the network stuff (http://wiretap.stetson.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/libOSC++/?only_with_tag=fraunhofer) it has several limitations and is still not multithreaded, but i planned to review the complete design of the thing. steve, we talked about it in the train on the way back from the first lad meeting at zkm... > reinventing the wheel, but I need threadsafeness, and implementing a > library for the subset youre talking about seems easy. i ever dreamed of a full implementation of osc in an object oriented, modern, easy-to-use way... perhaps it would be great to have an extensible C library for that and a C++-wrapper, thus doubling efforts is avoided. > define a service discovery service before too many more people implement > OSC support :) The current situation where people just try to pick a port > number noone else is using (AFAICT) and hope it gets telepathically great idea. AFAIK there is not yet a "standard" about that. > * No method query. It would be nice if there was a well-known method that > caused some metadata about the other methods to be dumped. Maybe there do you mean something like the documentation query in OSC? its syntax is worth discussing, but the idea in general seems to be o.k. > FWIW (I have some experience of optimising URL matchers), I would produce > a 64bit (or maybe only 32bit) hash of the paths, hash up incoming paths that's a really great idea. if we decide to implement pattern matching, for incoming messages containing wildcards a fallback to "normal" matching could take place. > I'm very happy to discussus a GPL'd library implementation or service > discovery, but we should probably continue on l-a-d. I should > really have posted my questions there too. I've CC'd this reply. in my opinion we should continue this on the osc-dev list. i think there are many other people interested in our discussion which are no ladies. guess, matt wright (the inventor of osc) would be quite happy about that, too. ladies being interested in osc should subscribe to osc-dev. there's not much traffic on it during the last month -- which should change :-) bests martin
