[Dev] 'get' revisited

[jb at integralive.org]

Hi Henrik,

On Sun, April 1, 2007 12:11 am, Henrik Sundt wrote:

>
> The reason I put ".get" instead of "/get" in the original protocol
> specification, is that the "OSC-route" object for Max/MSP from Berkley
> does not accept both having an argument to an address, like "/position 10"
> and a subaddress like "/position/get". Having an OSC-route-tree with a
> "/position" at first level, and then a "/get" on second level, will output
> an error if you input 10 as an argument at the first level.

[snip]

> I don't know whether the Berkley objects has a mis-implementation of the
> OSC protocol, or if the mix of arguments and sub-adresses is not allowed
> in the OSC protocol itself. According to Alexander Jensenius, "/get" works
> fine in the Jamoma implementations of an OSC-rolute object. I have not had
> time to investigate this further yet, but maybe some of you might have the
> correct answer.
>

One solution is to use a [route] object instead of [osc-route] in the
bottom layer of the  routing tree (see attached patch).

Jamie

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: osc-depth-test
Type: application/text
Size: 1230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://integralive.org/pipermail/dev_integralive.org/attachments/20070402/f7aa3b35/attachment.bin