On Wednesday 04 August 2004 02:05 pm, Steve Harris wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 06:34:32 +0100, Bob Ham wrote: > > The properties that I had been working on have become gobjects and what > > was to be a new networking system is a seperate, gobject-based library > > to provide a high-level networking api (eg, session_scan(), > > session_join(), etc) > > > > The TLA OSC has been banded about quite a bit, and this is not out of > > the question; it would be in a set of usable lower-level protocols (or > > perhaps the set :) > > OSC is pretty neat, however it has a few features that make it not ideal > for LASH: > > * theres no return codes or anything - if you want a reply you have to > receive an explict, seperate reply packet. > > * most clients only use the UDP transport, so theres no guantee that the > server got your messge. This is not really a big deal - in reality UDP > is quite relaible, and you could require the TCP transport, and still be > in the letter of the spec. > > Despite this, I think OSC might be a good choice. The obvious alternatives > (CORBA, SOAP, XML-RPC, etc.) are all really heavyweight. An alternative > might be D-BUS, but its paint is a little wet, and its not network > transparent. >
What do you think about shoehorning audio streams into OSC? > Incase you dont know, a typical OSC message might look like (but in binary > form): > > /lash/do/something is 1 "my session" > [method path] [types] [arguments] > > The types can be things like string, integer, float, double, binary blob, > timestamp etc. They are integer+string in the example. > > - Steve
