4 Aug
2004
4 Aug
'04
7:46 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:05, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 06:34:32 +0100, Bob Ham
wrote:
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-
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.