On 10/19/2012 04:29 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > On 10/19/2012 08:21 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> >> That's good to have, please post and maintain that somewhere, like maybe in >> the 'osc' lib. But its not yet a replacement because at the very least its >> not deployed. > > i honestly dunno what you mean here. > > imho, if you want to make changes to the OSCx library, you should rather > replace the externals with the patches i sent than replacing the autoconf > stuff with template/Makefile and renaming the folder (obviously, once that is > done there is exactly no reason to keep autoconf stuff so template/Makefile > (or even a stripped down version if you think it too bloaded) is enough. > this would "deploy" those objects to all PdX-0.43 installations (if this is > what you mean by "deploy"). > i figure, that the replacement patches have less bugs than the external > versions. > > starting yet another library doesn't make sense to me (esp. since the 2 > objects are almost 100% compatible (the only thing missing is multicast-group > support, and i wonder whether anybody uses that). > > adding those patches to mrpeach/osc (if this is what you refer to as "the > 'osc' lib) is imo not a splendid idea either, as mrpeach/osc is blissfully > unaware of the transport layer. (if martin thinks differently, he should go > and add those patches)
I'm not going to take on the maintenance of those patches, so just copying them into Pd-extended is not an option. I'm think Pd-extended should have an 'oscx' compatible library , and 'oscx' is already there, tested, etc. If you want to write a replacement, then please do. But for it to be truly a replacement, it needs to be released properly, widely tested, etc. .hc _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
