Re: Ardour-Dev Digest, Vol 134, Issue 1
Paul Davis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.ardour.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAFa_cKmju6btnrhkjKq_GqG3myepu0bJt_4Hj0_KYA2DR4cLow@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:32 PM, John Emmas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/06/2015 14:54, Paul Davis wrote: > >> >> There's not much point testing OSC support with the X32 without the >> active support of a developer working directly on OSC code. [...] OSC is a >> useful protocol but because it is completely non-standardized, both ends of >> the OSC exchange have to understand the same set of messages, and there is >> no standard set of messages. >> >> > Hmm... that seems like a pretty major drawback! Is OSC effectively a > dead protocol now? I took a look at the Issue Tracker but there've been no > posts for nearly 4 years!! > The notion of a standardized message set isn't part of the design spec or goals for OSC. People seem to completely misunderstand what OSC is. It is really just a specification of a message *format*. Not the mesage contents, or even the transport protocol. The messages consist of strings, with the first string being a set of 1 or more slash-separated words, optionally followed by arguments also passed as strings /this/is/a/valid/message /so/is/this 12 abd 19.78 /1871/akk1/a91991/a/ soIsThis /whatever/the/hell/you/want/to/use/it/is/ok/with/OSC OSC doesn't specify anything else, really. So unless to two ends of the connection understand that /foo/bar/baz means "stop the transport", then it is meaningless. > > Patrick - what gives you the impression that OSC is better for your > purposes? For example, is X32Reaper based around OSC perhaps? > > the X32 OSC protocol specification does allow some stuff that isn't possible with generic MIDI. but to use it you need something that understands the X32 OSC messages. _______________________________________________ ardour-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour.org