On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:31:00PM +0000, Folderol wrote:
> > And where do you get the 'quite significant overhead' ?
Anywhere where packets of different types have to be transmitted
over the same channel you need to add some data to identify the
packet type. It can be a simple as a single byte or int.
OSC does two things:
1. It encodes packet type in textual strings, which
can be structured in the same way as pathnames in
file system are.
2. It defines a way to describe and encode the data that
follows, so you are not limited to a set of predefined
Both are done in a way that make the conversion from/to
a textual representation very simple, which is some
cases is a desirable feature.
Neither of these is essential in the application we are
discussing, it could as well use a fixed set of binary
formats. If the limits of doing that are acceptable then
you don't need OSC or anything similar. If you don't want
such limitations then OSC is a good choice. That's all.
And anyway, until the fundamental hardware design issues
are solved, all this is in fact quite irrelevant.
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
Linux-audio-user mailing list