On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 09:37:40PM +0200, Winfried Ritsch wrote: > Please disagree if you can reference: > - OSC 1.0 ist not only UPD In theory this is true, but if you use any transport that does not provide message boundaries, you need close integration of the data receiving code and the actual parsing of the OSC message. This is because you don't know where in a stream of bytes for a message ends until you have at least parsed the path and the format string. So you can't just 'wait for a message' without interpreting it and then only when it is complete pass it to a decoder. If the transport is just a stream of bytes, you *could* wait until no more data is received for some time and assume that the message is then complete, and pass it to a decoder. This will of course introduce delay, and it could easily fail. Now UDP is the only common transport that *does* provide message boundaries, so probably that's why it is said that you need UDP. > - OSC was not a intended to replace MIDI, True. > - OSC predecessor was ZIPI not MIDI True, sort of. Ciao, -- FA _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
