[PD] networking with Pd (was Re: (no subject))

Andrew Faraday jbturgid at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 13 10:57:51 CEST 2010

Thanks, folks, there's a lot to think about there. 

Another workshop this evening, so we'll see what we find most useful.

Yeah, the lack of a subject was a sheer accident on my part.



> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:29:37 +0200
> From: zmoelnig at iem.at
> CC: pd-list at iem.at
> Subject: [PD] networking with Pd (was Re:  (no subject))
> is there a reason for omitting the subject?
> On 2010-04-12 21:11, Paulo Casaes wrote:
> > netsend and netreceive can send any type of message. You should look
> > into OSC for your needs.
> well afaics, OSC doesn't give you any advantage with the original problems.
> the problem seems to be related to Pd's messages rather than the
> net-objects (e.g. "[blu( -> [send val1 $1(" won't work, but if you use
> "[symbol blu(" it will; see the Pd-documentation and the list archives
> for why this is so)
> > 
> > In a related question, what is the difference between netsend and
> > sendOSC? 
> #0 i don't know whether i have said this before, but just in case:
> [sendOSC] is unmaintained and buggy, and i would suggest to not use it.
> use mrpeach's [packOSC] and [udpsend] instead.
> #1 they are different objects; [netsend] uses FUDI (which looks just
> like Pd-messages) as the application layer protocol, whereas [sendOSC]
> oses OSC
> > Can netsend and netreceive be used for OSC?
> no.
> they are different, non-compatible application layer protocols (OSC uses
> binary data enriched with meta-data, whereas Pd's FUDI is plain text
> with a special meaning of semicolon)
> you can probably construct an OSC-message that is parseable as a FUDI
> message and vice-versa, but nothing that i would "use".
> fgmasr
> IOhannes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20100413/68497fd1/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list