[PD] OSC messages without / (fwd)
Roman Haefeli
reduzent at gmail.com
Wed Oct 27 10:30:15 CEST 2010
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 09:47 +0200, Leandro da Mota Damasceno wrote:
> Hi Roman
>
> It's ok, i just keep forgetting to reply to all...
>
>
> so, I really don't understand how that could be happening, especially
> when in max/MSP i don't have to route any #bundle tag. It's funny how
> it shows how different it is to work with osc in both languages.
The inability of my proposed solution to deal with bundled messages has
nothing to do with Pd's support for OSC, but simply means that my way of
prepending a '/' is a bad hack and does not cover all OSC messages,
namely bundles.
AFAIK, [unpackOSC] from mrpeach is a more complete implementation of the
OSC protocol and is able to deal with bundles, but it is strict in
complying with OSC specification which requires the address to start
with a '/'.
It seems that the max patch is putting every OSC message into a bundled
message (which is ok) and omits the leading '/' (which is not ok). It's
this combination which makes it complex to rectify it on the Pd side.
Roman
> the deadline for next week is what is actually getting me worried...
>
>
> best
>
>
> Leandro
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Hi Leandro
>
> Sorry for not having responded quickly.
>
> I know that OSC supports so-called bundled messages. However,
> I haven't
> yet investigated how they actually work. It seems like your
> Max patch is
> sending bundled OSC messages. It seems like those are tagged
> with a
> '#bundle' and obviously the '/' is prepended to #bundle tag
> instead of
> the OSC address.
>
> I don't have a solution at hand for this, since it makes OSC
> message
> parsing in the byte realm even more complex.
>
> Probably there are some other ways to 'de-bundle' those
> messages first
> before prepending them a '/'? (Question to the commmunity)
>
> Roman
>
> P.S.: I think this discussion is still interesting for the
> list, so I
> cc'ed to the list.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 09:41 +0200, Leandro da Mota Damasceno
> wrote:
> > Hi Roman. My print message is returning something like:
> >
> >
> > mensagem: /#bundle likeliest 1
> >
> >
> > it was supposed to be /likeliest 1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> > Leandro
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Roman Haefeli
> <reduzent at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > Sorry, I definitely missed your reply then. Can you
> post the
> > error
> > message again?
> >
> > Roman
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 02:46 +0200, Leandro da Mota
> Damasceno
> > wrote:
> > > It partially worked. It seems to be something
> ALMOST there,
> > but I got
> > > an error message. I posted a few days ago. But
> it's
> > definitely the
> > > best solution right now
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Roman Haefeli
> > <reduzent at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 09:40 +0200, Leandro
> da Mota
> > Damasceno
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would like to apologize for the
> private emails.
> > it's that
> > > when I
> > > > reply to the messages they go to the
> author, not
> > the list.
> > > Weird.
> > > > that's not what happens in other mailing
> lists...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, I have tried to fix the standalone
> as jasch
> > suggested,
> > > but i got
> > > > all sorts of error messages. I would
> have to work
> > almost
> > > from scratch
> > > > and if my knowledge on PD is still in
> beginner
> > level, my
> > > knowledge of
> > > > max/MSP is almost null. Unfortunately,
> I'm on a
> > deadline to
> > > have this
> > > > thing working, so I need a workaround by
> next
> > week.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So right now, I'd rather not mess with
> the
> > standalone and
> > > working on a
> > > > new version by myself in a few weeks
> from now.
> > Martin, I can
> > > send you
> > > > the patch, but I'm afraid it won't be
> any helpful
> > for this
> > > case, since
> > > > it depends on dating coming from the
> standalone. I
> > can give
> > > it to you,
> > > > of course, if you want. But I think it's
> pretty
> > much what
> > > has been
> > > > described here. The best solution for
> now I think
> > would be
> > > to have a
> > > > way to get ordinary messages through
> udp. No OSC
> > standards.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry in case I missed it, but did the
> abstraction I
> > sent you
> > > recently
> > > not work? I don't think, that it should be
> too
> > difficult to
> > > find a way
> > > to deal with the faulty OSC messages in Pd
> (so that
> > you don't
> > > have to
> > > touch the standalone max/msp patch).
> > >
> > > Roman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list