On Fri, 2005-13-05 at 20:22 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 03:31:08AM +1000, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > If by <channel> you mean MIDI style channel number - dear god no. :) > > Note numbers are debatable (but frequency is better in most cases), but > > channel numbers definitely don't belong in OSC. Maybe an open-ended > > string identifier (which could represent a channel, a patch, a certain > > synth... whatever) > > > > There's no need to have confusing overloading with <voice> being zero or > > non-zero - just make different commands. Have one note on command to > > allocate the most appropriate voice (MIDI style), and one to start a > > note on a specific voice. In Om I've made seperate commands for global > > or voice-specific controls, and it works great. > > > > Ability to control individual voices specifically is one of the things I > > love about OSC. Death to MIDI. :) > > Agreed 100% - I was not proposing an OSC format, just I a hypothetical > variaton of MIDI that would have allowed client side voice control. > > I see you consistently start all your OSC paths with /om, while SL doesn't > do this. Any pros/cons ? It seems essential only when multicasting.
Well, for the clients it's there because there's no particular reason a client can't be talking to numerous apps at once, so having a prefix for each app's incoming messages is necessary. For the engine, I didn't really have any particular reason. I figured maybe it would prove useful down the road to separate things. Better safe than sorry.. -DR-
