[LAD] Announcement: oschema, oscdoc

[David Robillard]

On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 15:22 +0200, tom at trellis.ch wrote:
[...]
> > (enumerated paths being /foo/bar1/ /foo/bar2/ /foo/bar100/)
> > There was some reference to patterns, but at first glance they didn't
> > quite look applicable.
> 
> There is currently nothing foreseen to handle that kind of redundancy.
> Still it's possible to describe such messages. To me it looks like a
> /foo/bar i would be easier to handle. I wouldn't go so far and say that
> kind of API (enumerated path') is just not well designed.

To account for things like this, a good schema would need to detach the
paths from the "support", then provide a mechanism to match the two
based on path patters.

So, you could say things like:

control_support = "<path> supports '<path>/control f' messages"

then "any path that matches '/knobby_bits/*' supports control_support"

or something along those lines.  Then apps with a bunch of dynamic paths
that all follow a common control scheme are fine.

Disclaimer: Knee-jerk response, I haven't read the schema

-- 
dr