[PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?

[Pedro Lopes]

>anyway, i think using dynamic creation in real time is bad.
I don't. I know that you are probably just referring to the fact that it
affects performance and recomputes the DSP graph. But that would be the same
to call a gamedev and say: "don't create assets dynamically, create them all
at game start" - which is insane, there is a wide number of stuff in a lot
of engines that force a recompile of blob-trees, meshes, and other
3d-data-structures, but it always depends on the "amount of data" and the
"frequency of those calls".

>imho, it really should be limited for patch creation.
imho no. Depends on the situation, maybe you can say that you've seen
people overdo-it. (I haven't) As far as my experience, It suits what I need.
I have patches that create modules on user demand (for audio processing, and
so forth), and there is no need to create them in advance (although it is
possible and then just manage them later with dynamic routing) but
performance falls well under my needs so I apply dynamic patching in
realtime.

I'd like to hear you out on this matter, maybe several situations could not
apply to d. patching in rt, thus it is good to learn.

Best regards,
Pedro

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:07 PM, cyrille henry <ch at chnry.net> wrote:

>
>
> Le 19/02/2011 20:58, John Harrison a écrit :
>
>  Cyrille I just tried your solution and the problem is that all objects
>> sharing the name of the dynamically-created object all get the loadbang
>> message.
>>
> yes.
> you should create them all in the same time, and then send the loadbang.
> if this is not possible, you can still :
> -use different name on your object
> -use argument on the abstraction and send to bang to a [receive
> loadbang-$1] object inside your abstraction
> -use initbang
> -use a [oneshot] object (or similar) after the loadbang
>
> anyway, i think using dynamic creation in real time is bad.
> imho, it really should be limited for patch creation.
>
> c
>
>
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Pedro Lopes <pedro.lopes at ist.utl.pt<mailto:
>> pedro.lopes at ist.utl.pt>> wrote:
>>
>>     >yes, this is known.
>>    By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already?
>>
>>    When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues),
>> shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches?
>>
>>    It helps a lot those getting inside pd.
>>
>>    Best,
>>    pedro
>>
>>
>>    On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM, cyrille henry <ch at chnry.net <mailto:
>> ch at chnry.net>> wrote:
>>
>>        hello,
>>
>>        yes, this is known.
>>        you have to explicitly send the loadbang, like in this patch, using
>> your exemple.
>>        (don't know about initbang, i don't use it)
>>        c
>>
>>
>>        Le 19/02/2011 20:33, John Harrison a écrit :
>>
>>            is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it
>> is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do,
>> it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test
>> should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang.
>>
>>
>>
>>            --
>>            John
>>
>>
>>
>>            _______________________________________________
>>            Pd-list at iem.at <mailto:Pd-list at iem.at> mailing list
>>
>>            UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
>>
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        Pd-list at iem.at <mailto:Pd-list at iem.at> mailing list
>>
>>        UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    --
>>    Pedro Lopes (MSc)
>>    contact: pedro.lopes at ist.utl.pt <mailto:pedro.lopes at ist.utl.pt>
>>
>>    website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes /
>> http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ |
>> http://twitter.com/plopesresearch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Pedro Lopes (MSc)
contact: pedro.lopes at ist.utl.pt
website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes /
http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20110220/5bcb96b9/attachment.htm>