zzkt/osc
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 7 Pull requests Actions Projects Releases Activity

timetags, nested bundles, higher-level API and various tweaks #2

Closed
jamieforth wants to merge 24 commits from master into master
pull from: master
merge into: zzkt:master
Conversation 5 Commits 24 Files changed 16 +1601 -252
jamieforth commented 2015-09-15 12:33:07 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

This is a fairly big set of patches, sorry. The patches from 2010 are from the darcs days that I submitted at the time. Since they were not included in the git repository I assumed either that they were not suitable for inclusion, or you were no longer maintaining the library. Given the recent activity in the project I wanted to offer these changes for your consideration.

This is a fairly big set of patches, sorry. The patches from 2010 are from the darcs days that I submitted at the time. Since they were not included in the git repository I assumed either that they were not suitable for inclusion, or you were no longer maintaining the library. Given the recent activity in the project I wanted to offer these changes for your consideration.
zzkt commented 2015-09-15 14:38:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

thanks for sending the patches again. I've not been very active in maintenance, but i'll take a closer look when i get a chance (since there appears to be some conflicts, probably introduced with the fix for 'excess padding' i.e. be1a4f5d4b )

I've not really kept up with much of the recent discussion around osc, but iirc when you submitted the darcs patches we had a brief discussion about how to separate the 'core' protocol from the useful extras and/or non-standard extensions to osc. is this still an issue?

thanks for sending the patches again. I've not been very active in maintenance, but i'll take a closer look when i get a chance (since there appears to be some conflicts, probably introduced with the fix for 'excess padding' i.e. be1a4f5d4b40c2b6473fbbfa176f0c6d666bbc9d ) I've not really kept up with much of the recent discussion around osc, but iirc when you submitted the darcs patches we had a brief discussion about how to separate the 'core' protocol from the useful extras and/or non-standard extensions to osc. is this still an issue?
jamieforth commented 2015-09-16 14:02:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Great. There's nothing non-standard regarding osc here, the timetags and nested bundles conform to the spec I believe and play nicely with other osc implementations (dumpOSC, sendOSC, sc, pd). I recall the discussion though. One issue was probably related to sbcl-specific code (using sb-thread, sb-bsd-sockets, sb-ext etc.) which is a good reason not to include the patches until those parts are adapted to use more implementation-independent libraries.

The extras stuff is contained in the devices directory. This could arguably be a separate library, or at least package to distinguish it from the core osc protocol implementation.

Great. There's nothing non-standard regarding osc here, the timetags and nested bundles conform to the spec I believe and play nicely with other osc implementations (dumpOSC, sendOSC, sc, pd). I recall the discussion though. One issue was probably related to sbcl-specific code (using sb-thread, sb-bsd-sockets, sb-ext etc.) which is a good reason not to include the patches until those parts are adapted to use more implementation-independent libraries. The extras stuff is contained in the devices directory. This could arguably be a separate library, or at least package to distinguish it from the core osc protocol implementation.
zzkt commented 2019-04-02 07:44:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

just merged 158bd6860d which reminded me that i've still not merged these changes. maybe time for some more archeology...

just merged 158bd6860d5047017a4bd28c963341afeb7a62ea which reminded me that i've still not merged these changes. maybe time for some more archeology...
jamieforth commented 2019-04-02 10:14:54 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Haha yes, this is on a TODO list, but never quite makes it to the top.

Haha yes, this is on a TODO list, but never quite makes it to the top.
zzkt commented 2022-08-24 19:02:01 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

and thus -> 67118a4a14 (but also #9 )

and thus -> 67118a4a14e9defab5308eccec1f0db253015061 (but also #9 )

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
No items
No labels
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: zzkt/osc#2
No description provided.
Delete branch "master"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?