[OSC_dev] Everyone Invited - SYNoscopy

[salsaman at xs4all.nl]

On Thu, December 18, 2008 11:15, Gaspard Bucher wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Since we're talking about transport independence, I just wanted to
>> point out that the above is useful for a UDP scenario, but in TCP you
>> know who you're talking to as long as the connection remains alive.
>> Does /register apply in either case?
>
> This is also one of my concerns. Instead of the /reply_to or /register
> thing, why not just use TCP ? Anyone with experience using TCP for osc ?
>
> Gaspard
> _______________________________________________
> OSC_dev mailing list
> OSC_dev at create.ucsb.edu
> http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev
>

It should make no difference - the host still needs to know which port and
host to open its reply socket for, whether it is TCP or UDP.

The thing I am wondering about is whether we should add an optional
<protocol> parameter. But it is probably enough to assume that the
protocol of the reply socket should be the same as that of the command
socket.

Gabriel.
http://lives.sourceforge.net