Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] JACK & MIDI

On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 12:58 -0500, Paul Davis wrote: This is simply not true (I know who convinced you of this, because he tried to convince me too, but I actually read the spec ;) ) There's no reason not to truck around OSC messages just like MIDI messages, semantics are a separate issue (that is a "problem" with OSC no matter how you transport it). That is, the problem you are describing is just as present with OSC via UDP as via Jack. Standard for messages (ie /note_on) are the solution to this, and are also transport agnostic. If you read the OSC specification, it very precisely defines exactly what a message is as a sequence of bytes (ditto bundles). It also says absolutely nothing about /requiring/ messages be sent around in packet based addressed protocols like UDP (namely because this is silly, and would violate the hell out of the network layer model). The messages themselves are quite good as a generic message system. Simple, flexible, has several types you can use as arguments (including several floating point formats), and you can even easily extend it with new types (which the main spec document does itself, only 4 are truly "standard" OSC types). When anyone talks about OSC in Jack, what they really mean is transporting "OSC Messages" in Jack, and there's no problem with that. -DR- P.S. OSC messages are an awful lot like D-Bus messages, if anyone cares. (/paths/like/this "with" 1.0 "whatever" 5 "arguments") is a natural message format, if we reinvented it (just because a particular developer likes TCP/IP too much) we'd be reinventing the exact same thing except by a different name, completely unknown, and slightly incompatible. I hope it's obvious that this is.... less than wise