On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 10:21, Neil C Smith <neil_at_neilcsmith.net> wrote:
> So, you have asynchronous RPC! What's always been missing for me in
> OSC is an optional sender address (and ID) *in the message header*,
> such that you can implement bi-directional messaging and queries and
> anything else that needs to know where it's getting the message from
> easily. It shouldn't be part of the payload, because that requires
> the end point to *have* to know how to handle it, but it would open up
> so many more useful things for distributed work.
Hmm, my understanding is:
- If you're using UDP, you can listen on the same port that you're
sending stuff out from, so the server can reply to that. That's how SC
does it I believe.
- If you're using TCP, you can just reply
My problem with OSC is that musical applications don't really have
common special needs that warrant a particular protocol. At least,
that seems to be evident from OSC itself. Why don't we all just use
something more fully featured like zeromq, or whatever those high
frequency traders are using.. (not a serious suggestion, I think we're
stuck with OSC really..)
cheers
_______________________________________________
Livecode mailing list -- livecode_at_we.lurk.org
To unsubscribe send an email to livecode-leave_at_we.lurk.org
Received on Tue Jul 09 2019 - 16:15:11 BST