On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> Concidering OSC has been around for 12 years(v1.0, 17 years since first
> implementation), it may have already. The specification is the most
> non-specific thing I have ever seen. From the home page it seems to have
> not moved at all from 2009 (waiting for funding so 1.1 can be released).
> It would seem almost the same thing could be done with an ssh session
> using arbitrary strings.
Wow! I hadn't realised it had been around for so long.
In these posts, you described my own concerns pretty accurately. It could
easily become a nightmare of incompatibility. If various bits of kit want to
talk to each other, don't they all need a translation layer with separate
lists for every device they know about?
Also, while I can see that OSC fits very well for setup messages and general
housekeeping, I wonder at the overhead incurred for time-critical messages.
-- 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. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-userReceived on Thu Aug 14 12:15:02 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 14 2014 - 12:15:02 EEST