[Dev] 'get' revisited

[henrikfr]

> > I do agree that it's not strictly necessary, except that I think maybe
> > it's more semantically explicit to use "get".
> > Personally (in some non-Integra work) I've been using /get with an
> > argument to specify a timer interval at which the value should be
> > auto-reported.
> >
> 
> OK, I can see that this is a good reason for using a 'get' message.
> Perhaps this is something that should be considered for the OSC protocol
> spec...
> 
Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing. There is no reason why we cannot use the '/get' address for a module. The question is do we need a '.get' sub-address. In your example above, Steve, to retrieve the value value of the '/get' address you would send '/get.get' (pretty confusing ;)).

> > One thing to consider is how this might interact with the OSC-route
> > object in Max.  Of course we shouldn't cater too much to specific
> > implementations, but OSC-route doesn't make it so easy to differentiate
> > between messages with different numbers of arguments.  The output of
> > OSC-route would have to go into a "zl len" object to figure out the
> > number of arguments, which would perhaps control a select object, etc..
> > No nearly as clean as simply adding an argument to OSC-route.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you send an example?
> 
I think I understand what you mean Steve, but as you mention yourself, we shouldn't base the namespace on an environment specific problem. Also, this problem (if it turns out to be a problem) could be resolved in any number of ways within the library or in the module developer spec.

/henrik