[linux-audio-dev] Re: [ladcca] lash directions

[John Check]

On Wednesday 04 August 2004 02:05 pm, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 06:34:32 +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
> > The properties that I had been working on have become gobjects and what
> > was to be a new networking system is a seperate, gobject-based library
> > to provide a high-level networking api (eg, session_scan(),
> > session_join(), etc)
> >
> > The TLA OSC has been banded about quite a bit, and this is not out of
> > the question; it would be in a set of usable lower-level protocols (or
> > perhaps the set :)
>
> OSC is pretty neat, however it has a few features that make it not ideal
> for LASH:
>
> * theres no return codes or anything - if you want a reply you have to
>   receive an explict, seperate reply packet.
>
> * most clients only use the UDP transport, so theres no guantee that the
>   server got your messge. This is not really a big deal - in reality UDP
>   is quite relaible, and you could require the TCP transport, and still be
>   in the letter of the spec.
>
> Despite this, I think OSC might be a good choice. The obvious alternatives
> (CORBA, SOAP, XML-RPC, etc.) are all really heavyweight. An alternative
> might be D-BUS, but its paint is a little wet, and its not network
> transparent.
>

What do you think about shoehorning audio streams into OSC?

> Incase you dont know, a typical OSC message might look like (but in binary
> form):
>
> /lash/do/something    is     1   "my session"
> [method path]       [types]  [arguments]
>
> The types can be things like string, integer, float, double, binary blob,
> timestamp etc. They are integer+string in the example.
>
> - Steve