[PD] [comport]: 'info' not too helpful

Roman Haefeli reduzierer at yahoo.de
Tue Nov 13 02:44:08 CET 2007

On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 18:36 +0000, Martin Peach wrote:
> Roman Haefeli wrote:
> >
> >hi all
> >
> >when sending 'info' to comport, it outputs a bunch of messages to its
> >right outlet to give you some information about the properties of the
> >connection. however, if you use 'devicename <something>' to open a
> >connection, 'info' tells you 'port 9999', which is of course wrong. when
> >you do 'open 9999', not the same device gets opened, or more likely: no
> >device gets openend at all.
> 9999 is just a placeholder to indicate that the device was opened by name. 
> On Windows the correct index is given because all the ports are named COM. 
> On linux and OSX they have more complex names and glob is used to generate a 
> list of all ports and the index is just the order in the list. I can add 
> that feature soon...
> Until then, in recent [comport]s you can send the [ports( message and get a 
> list on the status outlet.
> For example:
> [ports(
> |
> [comport]
> |          |
>           [route ports]
>            |
>           [unpack 0 s]
> gives you pairs of index and name, which you could compare with the name you 
> opened the port with to find the index.
> >
> >i am working on a bunch of arduino abstractions that do find
> >automagically the correct port of the arduino board. i decided to use
> >different approaches on different os to probe the port of arduino. i
> >experienced, that on linux the arduino sometimes appears on port 8,
> >sometimes on port 48, probably it is different again on other linux
> >flavors. in order to avoid 40 or more error messages before the correct
> >port is found, i probe not with 'port [1-99]', but with
> >'devicename /dev/ttyUSB[0-20]' on linux, since the devicename seems to
> >be consistent throughout all linux flavors. however, i would like to
> >avoid, that several abstractions use all their own [comport] on the same
> >port, since i encountered, that when several [comport]s are listening on
> >the same port, not all [comport]s will always receive all messages. for
> >all above reason i would need to know, what the actual port number is of
> >a connection, even if the connection was opened using
> >'devicename /dev/ttyUSB[0-20]'.
> It might be better to use only one [comport] and send the data to the 
> abstractions with [send] and [receive] since normally opening a comport will 
> fail to open a port if the same port is already in use.

yo, sorry, if my sentences have been too confusing, but this is exactly
what i would like to achieve. i encountered, that it _is_ possible to
run several [comport]s on the same port, but then sometimes data from
the arduino board doesn't seem to reach all [comport] objects. that is
why i would like to implement a kind of a singleton pattern, that
automatically uses the already existing/connected [comport], if there is
any and otherwise uses it's on [comport]. in order to achieve that, i
need to know the port number, that a certain [comport] uses. this is
very easy, if the connection was opened using a 'open' message, but if a
certain [comport] established a connection using the 'devicename'
method, then i don't know, which port this [comport] actually is using. 

yo, what i am going to try now is to work with the 'port' method, as you
proposed, so that i can find out, which device got which index (which
actually should solve my problem)

can you tell me, how long the new [comport] has been in cvs? is it
probably already part of the released pd-extended-0.39.3?


Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

More information about the Pd-list mailing list