[PD] Question on SSSAD and scalability

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Mike McGonagle hat gesagt: // Mike McGonagle wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org> wrote:
> 
> The context that I was actually thinking was in trying to do "live
> coding". Of all the times that I have been using SSSAD, my biggest
> complaint about it is that I would always need to resave, close, and
> reopen the file. It always seemed that the one instance of an SSSAD
> reference that I was deleting was the FIRST ONE. Of course, doing that
> was sure to make that parameters NOT SAVE, unless I reopened.

A closebang would solve this. It will probably happen less often with local
sssads.
 
> > Now if you really worry about the load of having a lot of
> > [route]-misses when sending message, I'd recommend to use the "local"
> > senders in sssad, that are used when adding a second argument to a
> > [sssad] object: [sssad key $0] will use a bus called [r $0-SSSAD] and
> > [r $0-SSSAD_ADMIN] instead of the global ones.
> 
> My whole point of bringing this up has more to do with how an
> "external" (yes, actual C code) might be able to implement the SSSAD
> protocol. I can think of MANY EXTERNALS that would benefit by doing
> this...
> 
> At the same time, that might make it appear that SSSAD is an accepted
> standard in Pd. And Miller, himself has written on this very topic...
> So, what is the means of storing data... is there one?

Storing data is not in the realm of sssad - again this is by design and comes
from my experience with  RRADical/Memento where the storage was inside the
saving system and tied to [pool].

SSSAD is intended to to just one thing but do that right: Its purpose is to
eavesdrop on the messages that objects send to each other and distribute them
to rsp. modify them from a central place. That's all. What comes after that
central place is up to the end user. It would be easy to make an external that
does the same. sssad is just a wrapper around [list], [route] [send] and
[receive]. One "S" in its name stands for "simple". ;)

> I'm curious, but how many "externals" do you have with RjDj? I can
> only assume that you can't do too much with it, other than the basic
> implementation of Pd.

Hm, I don't understand this question? RjDj is pretty much pure Pd and has
almost no externals at all - which doesn't mean that you can't do much with it:
For audio work Pd is very powerful and no externals are (strictly) necessary. 

Ciao
-- 
Frank