On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 12:56 +0200, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> > then I tried udpserver which doesn't work (at least the > version in the > > pd's SVN) > > then I switch to tcpserver and I got a lots of troubles... > > > Things look good as long as you think you only need streams. > As soon as > you figure out that you need to send packets between your > instances of > Pd, things get really complex wit [tcpserver]. > > > no, I don't really need stream > I choose [udpserver] because it's the only server in the iemnet's > folder that works > yep, it's a stupid reason... I should better try another udpserver > somewhere else... :-) I think iemnet is the only library with a [udpserver] implementation. It doesn't seem to be working and also the help-file reflects that. Actually, a working [udpserver] would be practical when dealing with packets, much more so than a [tcpserver]. > > I will try out iohannes version of iemnet and I'll also > investigate > > those bugs My _personal_ opinion is that helping fix bugs for iemnet is rather worth effort than for net. I gave up on net, especially on [net/tcpserver] and am exclusively using iemnet. iemnet's design is a bit different in that it puts each socket into its own thread which has some advantages: * iemnet hardly ever blocks Pd * iemnet is quite fast performance-wise * iemnet hasn't exposed any data integrity issues cons: * connection state is not reported correctly (incl. num of connected clients) * is by design more prone to crashes. However, I haven't experienced them for quite a while. I consider it quite stable nowadays I haven't found a version of [net/tcpserver] that reliably ensures data integrity. Under load I always received mixed up or even lost chunks of data. This was on Linux. Your mileage may vary if you are on Windows, though. Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
