6 Mar
2012
6 Mar
'12
2:07 p.m.
On 05.03.12 21:50, David Robillard wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 12:13 +0100, Stefan Kersten
wrote:
it's probably an attempt to provide a nicer syntax for packet creation and i
can't say i dislike it - if c++ had first class functions it probably wouldn't
be necessary. anyway, it's only syntax, and as far as i can tell packet creation
and parsing is realtime safe in oscpack.
On 3/5/12 2:16 AM, David Robillard wrote:
OSCPack uses the stream-style << abuse syntax, arguably (though not
really) the most awful thing about C++. I think a very simple stand-alone API to deal
with OSC message would go
a long way towards making OSC more feasible for plugins or Jack apps.
there are at least two options: a header library i've been using in a
couple of projects [1] and oscpack [2]. both c++ though ... OSCPP looks pretty good though. Basically a C++ey
version of what I was
talking about. Thanks for the pointers.
The "require a size before constructing a message" thing sucks for
certain cases of generic construction, however this might only be really
much of an issue for bundles which don't have that problem, so maybe
it's not such a big deal.
I have been idly wondering if a round-trip OSC<=>Atom bridge would be
possible. Atoms are essentially primitives (int, float, string, etc)
with a few simple collections, all POD (vector, dictionary). You can
think of it as sort of a JSONish approach, but low-level rather than
text.
it seems to be rather similar to bson [1] actually.
I wonder how one would express a dictionary in OSC?
Assuming for the moment embracing and extending types is fine, there is
one easy cop-out solution, make a type-tagged-blob type, the same as the
normal one except it starts with a type int, but that's pretty opaque.
Maybe something like [] for arrays? {kvkv...}, e.g.
/foo/adict {sssi} "name" "David" "id" 42
=
{ "name": "David"
"id": 42 }
without the need for new types you could also "abuse" the bundle system, by
interpreting bundles within the top-level bundle as dictionaries with messages
as key/value pairs; this changed semantics would need to be explicitly supported
by other applications, of course.
there's some talk about this in a thread on OSC 2.0 [2], but i couldn't find a
draft document of the new protocol revision.
<sk>
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSON
[2] http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/pipermail/osc_dev/2011-November/thread.html#19…