[PD] (netpd)U(Pd-extended)

[Enrique Erne]

good morning patrice



On Jun 9, 2007, at 4:48 PM, patrice colet wrote:

> (assuming that this message didn't arrive to the list, sorry if you've
> received this mail twice, I've also corrected the end of the message)
>
> Hi eni,
>
> Le samedi 09 juin 2007 à 11:26 +0200, Enrique Erne a écrit :
>> hi patko
>
>> if you miss an abstraction there is something wrong with your setup.
>
> No, I seriously think that if I miss an abstraction, there is something
> wrong with the documentation, or comments, and I am not talking about
> net-pd. I'd rather rebuild my own set of abstractions than looking for
> the missing patch if I have to surf internet, ask questions to pd-list
> for getting answers.

i thought you got the patch through netpd's creator.

please tell me which patch is missing an abstraction and where you got
it from, sp i can fix it. at least it should be mentioned in the wiki.


> An undocumented patch is almost always a waste of
> time for every pd users. I can tell this for myself too.

i'm afraid all my patches have no comments, sorry.
i tried to put the most important information to the netpd-wiki

>> i think i can say _every_ netpd-patch that uses abstractions has
>> a subpatch [pd abslist] with a list of msgs containing all used
>> abstractions.
>>
>> when one netloads a patch, _creator.pd will read the abslist and
> tells
>> all
>> the users that it is going to upload a patch with the specific
>> abstractions
>> and version number.
>
> Yes, that's a very cool functionning, it could save everyone a lot of
> time, and it would be even better if _creator.pd was able to update
> itself

i don't know if creator can update itself, but that sounds like 
micrsoft/apple
"new software has been installed, your computer is ready to restart"
:-)

> , and why not letting it update absolutely all the files (even the
> ones in the bin directory)? It would certainly require a 'pd
> repositories'.

netclient/netserver sends ascii data which we use for patches
and control information.

> Instead of uploading abstraction from a net-pd user's computer, it 
> might
> be better if the abstraction were uploaded from a net-pd repository.
>  Any one that would like to add abstractions to net-pd would have to
> submit them to an active authority of the net-pd project, then it would
> avoid a lot of mistakes, and the autor would still be referenced but
> rather in a net-pd database than into the patch, were more usefull
> information could be displayed.

i personally don't like the idea of an authority deciding which patches
get accepted for the netpd project.

i prefer the free direct system it now has. if you fix a bug just 
increase
the version msg and netload it again. every user connected get's the 
fix.

all the user have the same rights. no royalty. no "animalfarm"
also the server is only the gate to others.. it doesn't do much
else than sending the incoming msgs to the connected users.

a while back we had a user running 24/7. that one would get 
automatically
all patches ever netloaded. i'd love to have this user online again
and maybe even with its netpd directory in public_html so everybody 
could get
these files.


>> what information would you like to see in the patches ?
>>
> I simply would like to be able to understand without having to browse
> all patches and subpatches hundreds of times for having a clue about 
> how
> the objects are functionning. For example if I want to put an FX-insert
> into an net-pd instrument I've made, I take a look at how it has been
> implemented in other intruments and in the mixer, and I give up after
> two hours because it's a real mess, there is absolutely no explanations
> anywhere.

it's not quite true that there is absolutely no explanation. see links
http://www.netpd.org/mx
http://www.netpd.org/I2mx
http://www.netpd.org/HowtoBuildFx4Mx

> Just seeing 'information' would be a good start, ;).

yes sure! i'm sorry that i didn't comment my patches... but in example 
of the
netpd-mixer you should be able to use it without having a look at mx.pd

all you need to make a instrument fully use the mx (as described in
netpd.org/I2mx) is an abstraction [i2mx~ $0 yourinstrumentname]

i don't think that it is a good idea to put these instructions into
the abstractions.

also you are very welcome to login the netpd chat and ask before you 
spend
other 2 hours.

regards

eni