linuxaudio.org

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:05, Steve Harris wrote:

quoted text
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 06:34:32 +0100, Bob Ham wrote:

> > The properties that I had been working on have become gobjects and what

> > was to be a new networking system is a seperate, gobject-based library

> > to provide a high-level networking api (eg, session_scan(),

> > session_join(), etc)

> >

> > The TLA OSC has been banded about quite a bit, and this is not out of

> > the question; it would be in a set of usable lower-level protocols (or

> > perhaps the set :)

>

> OSC is pretty neat, however it has a few features that make it not ideal

> for LASH:

>

> * theres no return codes or anything - if you want a reply you have to

>   receive an explict, seperate reply packet.

>

> * most clients only use the UDP transport, so theres no guantee that the

>   server got your messge. This is not really a big deal - in reality UDP

>   is quite relaible, and you could require the TCP transport, and still be

>   in the letter of the spec.

>

> Despite this, I think OSC might be a good choice. The obvious alternatives

> (CORBA, SOAP, XML-RPC, etc.) are all really heavyweight. An alternative

> might be D-BUS, but its paint is a little wet, and its not network

> transparent.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I vote OSC as well.
LASH is for Controlling Sound applications after all.. :)
The lack of return is annoying, but not all that tough to work around.
-DR-