Re: OSC changes/updates

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016, Maurizio Berti wrote:

>       I've used that. As you appear to have replied off list, I am doing
>       the same. I would prefer the larger audience of the list so feel free
>       to reply there.
> 
> 
> Sorry, that wasn't my intention, you're right about that; I'm used to auto-reply
> lists which automatically set the reply address to the mailing manager, so I
> didn't check that.

No problem :)
>
>       most tablet based controllers prefer to be relatively dumb like the
>       MCP boxes. As such, I see importance in feedback using the same
>       path/format as the control and banking. Getting rid of the parameter
>       for RID/strip I'm not sure. This would break things for sure. (I
>       think there may be a hack in there that will take
>       /ardour/routes/control/rid as if it was /ardour/routes/control rid)
> 
> 
> Well, to avoid backward compatibility breakage, you could add some sort of "init"
> message that will let ardour know that an advanced support is available from the
> control surface. But that's just an idea.

"advanced"? In some ways banking might allow more advanced features.

The advantages of banking besides simpler control setup include less 
network bandwidth which starts to become important for metering for 
example. It limits feedback for that controller to only the routes in the 
bank. (the bank can be 1 strip or 64)

> Anyway, let's get back on the mailing list, see you there! :)

Done...

--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net