On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Len Ovens <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Concidering OSC has been around for 12 years(v1.0, 17 years since first > implementation), it may have already. The specification is the most > non-specific thing I have ever seen. From the home page it seems to have > not moved at all from 2009 (waiting for funding so 1.1 can be released). > It would seem almost the same thing could be done with an ssh session > using arbitrary strings. Wow! I hadn't realised it had been around for so long. In these posts, you described my own concerns pretty accurately. It could easily become a nightmare of incompatibility. If various bits of kit want to talk to each other, don't they all need a translation layer with separate lists for every device they know about? Also, while I can see that OSC fits very well for setup messages and general housekeeping, I wonder at the overhead incurred for time-critical messages. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
