On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:14:03AM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
The thing is that you don't just need 1 new function in liblo, but a number
Modifying something like lo_server_new() leads to an API change, which
should IMO be prevented if possible.
> > The use of a client_id is oversimplifying the situation too much IMO.
I know how rendezvous works. But a client_id is not sufficient, so
why expect applications to provide such data?
> The namespace is actually a seperate problem from the service discovery
The namespace is not the problem here, it is the solution. Yes, OSC and
service discovery are separate things. But it's the usage of both
technologies that leads to acceptable results for all applications.
If a library API does not provide added functionality there isn't that
much reason for it's existance at all.
> > liblo only provides OSC messaging at the moment. To me it is safest to
I think you underestimate the complexity of this issue, as you keep saying
things are not a problem.
You've lost me on the 100% different part: liblo is a library. Wether
functionality is implemented in liba or libb does not make any difference
as to it's implementation. As such there is no need for any rewrite.
I have no doubt your solution will work for the application you have in
mind. But I find it impossible to apply you logic to other scenarios/usages.