[Ardour-Dev] Ardour-Dev Digest, Vol 134, Issue 1
paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Fri Jun 5 11:23:11 PDT 2015
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:32 PM, John Emmas <johne53 at tiscali.co.uk> 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
/so/is/this 12 abd 19.78
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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ardour-Dev