4 Sep
2004
4 Sep
'04
2:29 p.m.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 07:48:22PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
My point was that ranges for controls and stuff like that probably don't
really belong in the liblo API at all.. I would expect you, wanting to
keep liblo simple, would agree on that.
My intention is to keep the liblo *API* simple, the library itsself is
allready fairly complicated, the idea is that it hides the complexities of
the nuts-and-bolts of the protocol.
Basically, I don't see what needs to be done to
liblo, other than the
service discovery part.
Nothing, but the API doesnt include enough stuff yet. I dont really want
to expand the API until its standardised properly though. Wouldn't just a standard that defines how OSC apps
can tell each other
about their controls (and ranges, and all that) be much nicer? Things
like this depending on liblo is probably a bad idea IMO.
I think we're agreeing, but using different terminology.
The proposed rec. covers method querying, but it needs some API support to
make it simple enough for enough people to bother using it for it to take
off.
FWIW the propsed method query system is documented here:
http://www.opensoundcontrol.org/papers/query_system/osc-query-system.pdf
- Steve