Roman Haefeli wrote: > >Martin Peach wrote: > > Yes, and [unpackOSC] has no way of knowing if it is getting data from > > UDP or TCP so it should probably assume the worst and go for TCP. In > > fact, to be unbreakably robust it should assume it is getting input one > > byte at a time and not output anything until either an entire OSC packet > > has been received or the packet is not valid OSC. > >this is how i would like [unpackOSC] to behave. i don't see any other >way to do OSC over tcp. >
I think opening a bundle and putting all the simultaneous messages in it, then closing the bundle and sending it, will work over tcp. In practical terms a byte-wise [unpackOSC] would have to copy incoming bytes into a buffer and repeatedly attempt to parse them as an OSC message until the entire message had been received. The overhead of doing this would waste a lot of cpu. If a tcp packet always contains an integral number of OSC packets it's a little easier, we just have to check for more packets in the buffer. I would try the bundle approach first... Martin _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
