[PD] port used by sendOSC

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Sun Dec 18 20:04:40 CET 2005


I just had the same thought.  It seems to me that Pd's OSC objects could 
be implemented so that they just do the protocol, then we'd have 
separate network objects that handle all of the networking.  It would be 
a much more flexible system, and there would be less overlap in code to 
maintain (i.e., you would only have network code in the network obects, 
and OSC code in the OSC objects)

.hc

B. Bogart wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> Can [netclient] be used to replace sendOSC and dumpOSC and then use only
> routeOSC for the routing?
> 
> I've not had a need for full duplex OSC yet...
> 
> b.
> 
> c wrote:
> 
>>> actually I just figured out that it wouldn't work, as the dumpOSC
>>> object can't listen on the port that's being used by sendOSC.
>>
>>
>>
>> OSCx is half duplex. if you are unsatisfied with using seperate ports
>> to send and recieve , you could look into enabling liblo in pd via
>> Flext, or some of the OSC reflectors/managers like OSCgroups and a
>> couple others whose name i can't recall..
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list





More information about the Pd-list mailing list