[OSC_dev] oscit registration complete !

[Gaspard Bucher]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Jeff Glatt <jgglatt at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> Questions about oscit:
>
> 1) Why is it limited to UDP?
UDP is a first step. Network protocols are the only ones that enable
zero configuration (plug & play) for the moment so this is the
priority. All other connections can be handled through an application
that acts as proxy.

>
> 2) Why do you need the /.reply_to message? A UDP datagram includes the
> sender's reply address, so you just pull that out of the UDP datagram if you
> want to reply. So too, you can get the sender's address from a TCP (ie,
> connected) socket. I imagine that most other multi-bus protocols include the
> sender information with any "message", for example, with USB. So why don't
> you just leave it up to the underlying protocol to supply the sender's
> address (in the same way that OSC itself leaves it up to the underlying
> protocol to supply the size of each received OSC message)?
Because it doesn't work ! Most implementations of OSC I have tried do
not let you define the outgoing port when creating a connection. This
means packets are sent with something like "10.0.0.5:90002" and
sending messages back to this IP:port pair is of no use because the
application does not listen at this port. The obvious solution to
ignore "/.reply_to" is to use mdns to get the reply port of an IP. But
even this solution would break when you have multiple applications at
the same IP.

I don't like the "/.reply_to" thing and will do my best to get rid of
it, but I am afraid it will have to stay...

Gaspard
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSC_dev mailing list
> OSC_dev at create.ucsb.edu
> http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev
>