On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:24:55PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote: > On Tue, 2005-15-03 at 21:12 +0100, Arnold Krille wrote: > > So my question arises: Which OSC-implementation to use? > > I had a look into Steve Harris' liblo and libOSC++. The later seems more > > appealing to me since I am a C++-Guy. > > > > What do you folks think? What do you propose? What are you using? > > > > Arnold > > > > [1] http://roederberg.dyndns.org/~arnold/jackmix/ > > Definitely use liblo, no question. It's actually in active development > (libosc++ is stale as can be), and is generally the OSC library for > linux audio things to use (IMNSHO). In other words, most people have > it, or will soon enough (it's in Debian, and libosc++ is not, for the > record)
Ugh, I have a strong aversion to protocol implementation mono-culture. I know there are some apps that have thier own OSC implementation or use other libraries, but it will be a source of compatibility problems if basicly all linux audio people end up using liblo. That was never my intention when I wrote it, I just wanted C programmers to have a decent option. Misguided C++ programmers can fend for themselves ;) > I use it for GUI->Engine (and back) communication, and all is well (and > yes, two clients can control the engine and see each others updates and > all that - it looks pretty cool ;] ) > > Plus, liblo is going to get ZeroConf service discovery and other such > shiny things Real Soon Now(TM) ZeroConf is certainly pretty neat. > P.S. Death to MIDI! :) Well death-to-MIDI-in-software! thats a little less snappy though ;) Until people start producing cheap OSC-speaking hardware were kinda stuck with MIDI. - Steve
