Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: OSC for GUI-Engine communication
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jul 29 2004 - 19:58:21 EEST
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 06:44:57PM +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
> >From: Dave Robillard <drobilla_AT_connect.carleton.ca>
> >
> >The question is, which implementation is best? All I can find is
> >Steve's liblo, libosc++, and the 'official' OSC kit. What are the
> >advantages/drawbacks of each? I can find very little information on any
> >of them.
>
> Last I checked OSC, it had Lisp/Scheme like syntax. Don't know
> if that is a drawback --- anyone?
I doesnt have a s-expression like syntax, and it never has, you could
write OSC expressions in s-expressions, I guess, but theres no reason to.
The syntax has a fairly typical RPC structure: address followed by
typesignature then arguments. The on-the-wire format is binary. liblo
treats it a bit like printf/scanf, but you could stick any API you liked
over it.
I can promise you I wouldn't have touched OSC with a bargepole if it was
based on s-expressions. S-expressions are like XML, but with anonymous
attributes, yuk :)
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jul 29 2004 - 20:01:07 EEST