S.W.Harris at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Wed Mar 16 09:15:43 UTC 2005
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:24:55PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-15-03 at 21:12 +0100, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > So my question arises: Which OSC-implementation to use?
> > I had a look into Steve Harris' liblo and libOSC++. The later seems more
> > appealing to me since I am a C++-Guy.
> > What do you folks think? What do you propose? What are you using?
> > Arnold
> >  http://roederberg.dyndns.org/~arnold/jackmix/
> Definitely use liblo, no question. It's actually in active development
> (libosc++ is stale as can be), and is generally the OSC library for
> linux audio things to use (IMNSHO). In other words, most people have
> it, or will soon enough (it's in Debian, and libosc++ is not, for the
Ugh, I have a strong aversion to protocol implementation mono-culture. I
know there are some apps that have thier own OSC implementation or use
other libraries, but it will be a source of compatibility problems if
basicly all linux audio people end up using liblo. That was never my
intention when I wrote it, I just wanted C programmers to have a decent
option. Misguided C++ programmers can fend for themselves ;)
> I use it for GUI->Engine (and back) communication, and all is well (and
> yes, two clients can control the engine and see each others updates and
> all that - it looks pretty cool ;] )
> Plus, liblo is going to get ZeroConf service discovery and other such
> shiny things Real Soon Now(TM)
ZeroConf is certainly pretty neat.
> P.S. Death to MIDI! :)
Well death-to-MIDI-in-software! thats a little less snappy though ;) Until
people start producing cheap OSC-speaking hardware were kinda stuck with
More information about the Linux-audio-dev