On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 16:17 -0500, Martin Peach wrote: > On 2010-11-28 15:57, Roman Haefeli wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 13:38 -0500, Martin Peach wrote: > >> On 2010-11-28 12:13, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >>> > >>> Hey Martin and all, > >>> > >>> Just had a thought: originally everything in the 'mrpeach' folder was > >>> bundled into a single library, which I think Martin didn't really > >>> intend. I did it to get Martin's valuable code out there in a kind of > >>> beta way. Now I think its quite clear that the 'net' and 'osc' sections > >>> in 'mrpeach' are really the canonical way of doing networking and OSC > >>> with Pd > > > > I'd hesitate to call using mrpeach/net the 'canonical' way. Last time I > > checked, there were still issues with many classes, in particular the > > blocking issue of [tcpsend]/[tcpclient]/[tcpserver] discussed in a > > plethora of mails. That's also the reason why IOhannes rewrote those and > > released them as the iemnet library. The classes from iemnet are > > high-performance and don't suffer from any blocking issue. > > That's another reason they should be in net instead of mrpeach: it seems > that having my name on the folder inhibits others from improving the > objects, so we end up with multiple parallel incompatible objects, in > this case with the same names. > > (And when was the last time you checked?) > > Martin
I call mrpeach/net canonical not because I believe is it perfect and bugfree, but rather because it is the established, proven way of doing more elaborate networking. Its the best option out there. iemnet is just a fork of that with some specific changes. iemnet is very new and not tested as much, so it seems a really bad idea to start basing things off of it, like how to package things in Debian, etc. Who knows, perhaps mrpeach/net and iemnet will merge again. .hc _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
