14 Nov
2009
14 Nov
'09
6:31 p.m.
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:16:16 +0100
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 04:36:30PM +0000, Folderol
wrote:
I'm quite aware of that. I don't know what makes you think I was trying
to make a direct comparison. In fact, I think I actually compared UDP
to TCP in an earlier post.
With this lack of standardisation is there any
point in going for OSC
with it's quite significant overhead? Netjack also seems to have quite
a high overhead, and no specific mechanism for RT syncing audio.
It seems that the UDP protocol is already the preferred protocol for a
number of streaming media apps (1) for the same reasons as I mooted
earlier. Low packet overhead, virtually any packet size, chuck it out
as fast as the transport layer can cope with.
If you are comparing OSC to UDP you are comparing apples
to oranges. UDP is a transport protocol. OSC is a way to
encode events and associated data in a binary format. And
indeed there are no standards that define the meaning of
any OSC message. That again is at a different level. And where do you get the 'quite significant
overhead' ?
It just depends on how you use it.
Well, maybe I'm wrong, but looking through the info I could find I got
the impression there was a lot of identification stuff going on before
you got anywhere near actual data.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.