[PD] Opinions please: RRADical OSC inlet as a global receiver?

Michal Seta mis at artengine.ca
Wed Dec 15 06:31:15 CET 2004

Hi Frank,

I only started looking at RRADical a couple of days ago and was about
to ask a similar question before the end of the week :)

I am not sure what you mean by 'global' but I was struck by the fact
that I cannot control an abstraction via messages without connecting a
[receive] into the OSC inlet.  I would like to be able to control
various parameters via messages or even OSC, remotely, for that
matter.  Unless I am missing some important detail of rrad, I suppose
that this is what you are getting at.

I was toying with the idea of supplying a [r $1] (hidden within
abstraction), basing myself on your use of [r $0-whatever] connected
to the OSC inlet for such communication.  My thinking was that all
rrad.X abstractions need to have a $1 supplied anyways.  And I recon,
that just [r $1] would be too simplistic as it would not ensure the
uniqueness of the receive.

In my limited use of RRADical (actually, I haven't really used it
_that_ much, but pretty much started with porting of an abstraction of
mine to see how/what I could benefit) I wanted to be able to send
specific data to the specific controls of my abstraction{1} from a
'companion' abstraction{2}, which, from a user point of view would be
optional to use but built specifically for abstraction{1} and could be
abused right after instantiation without having to patch anything up.
I know I am not making any sense but whatever.

Now, thinking about it, I think I understand your 'global' is
literally global.  I would be happy with a simple 'access point' but
then again, I have not used RRAD long enough to appreciate the benefit
of a global receiver.

In any case, thanks and kudos on the RRAD thing.  I'm sorry I did not
take a look at it before, it would have saved me a lot of neuron
energy and perhaps a few brain cells as well.



Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org> writes:

> Hi all,
> I am considering to make the OSC-inlet in RRADical/Memento (and maybe
> the OSC-outlet) accessible as a global receiver (rsp. sender) for
> example called "RRADICAL-OSC". Technically this is dead easy: Just
> double the inlet with a [r RRADICAL-OSC]
> But generally I am very reluctant to mess with the global send/receive
> namespace and everything is $0-ified. However in the case of the
> OSC-inlet I have found, that I sometimes don't use the OSC stuff,
> because it would involve making a lot of patch cord connections and
> I'm lazy. Still if I use the OSC-inlet, it does make so many good
> things possible, that I'm leaning towards making it easier to use it.
> So, you handful of rradical/memento users out there: What shall I do?
> Ciao
> -- 
>  Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list

More information about the Pd-list mailing list