[PD] netsend/netreceive questions ...

Billy Stiltner billy.stiltner at gmail.com
Mon Mar 6 18:31:36 CET 2017


On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:10 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>

> On 2017-02-23 02:39, Martin Peach wrote:
> > Right now, [unpackOSC] only accepts lists, which must be complete OSC
> > packets. I could make it accept lists,
> i think that [unpackOSC] behaves as it should.
> esp. i don't think that it should attempt to form packets out of a
> bytestream by itself.
> this is clearly the task of a lower-level protocol:
> the  original OSC-1.0 specs didn't mention any means to do the
> packetizing on stream-based protocols (most likely an omission), only
> later SLIP was *recommended* (rather than *mandated*) [citation needed].
> afaik, there are still implementations out there that do not use SLIP
> for packetizing (but rather prefix each OSC-packet with a 4 byte length
> field [citation needed]).
> > or single floats, with no output
> > until it has a complete packet or a definite erro
> the problem with this is, that there is no way to know when an OSC
> *bundle* (rather than a message) has finished (if you don't have a
> end-of-package marker).
> so if you received a time-tagged bundle with two messages A & B, and
> immediately after that a plain message C, unpackOSC wouldn't have a way
> to auto-sense the difference between B and C (either B would be output
> as "immediate" without a timetag, or C would be timetagged; both are wrong)
> fgamf
> IOhannes
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
> listinfo/pd-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170306/96b22ab0/attachment.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list