Martin Peach wrote: > The idea is to expand it to fit circumstances as they arise. I hadn't > really tried OSC over TCP, so I wasn't aware of this problem. I agree it > needs fixing, I'm just not sure of the best way at the moment. It could > be simpler to prefix the OSC packet with its length.
That's indeed what is recommended by the OSC specification for stream-based protocols: http://www.nabble.com/Questions-wrt--OSC-implementation-details.-td1109673.html But this makes it more complicated, [packOSC] and [unpackOSC] would need to know whether the data should be sent or is being received from a packet-based protocol or a stream-based protocol, to know whether to prefix the length or not. Claude -- http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
