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

[Dave Robillard]

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:05, 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.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I vote OSC as well.

LASH is for Controlling Sound applications after all.. :)

The lack of return is annoying, but not all that tough to work around.

-DR-