[Ardour-Dev] Ardour-Dev Digest, Vol 134, Issue 1

[Paul Davis]

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

   /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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-dev-ardour.org/attachments/20150605/7c404170/attachment-0002.htm>