[Dev] gui instance host question

[Henrik Frisk]

Jamie Bullock <jb at integralive.org> wrote:
> 
> That's not quite right. It isn't possible for a bridge to be loaded
> without an IH -- the Instance Host is also a bridge host. Even on one
> machine you'd need multiple instances of libIntegra if you want to use
> multiple module hosts. However libIntegra only compiled with
> --enable-instance_host is very lightweight (only 32k), and liblo, its
> only dependency is only 36k.
> 
Ooops... I'm sorry about that. Somehow I always thought that's the way
it should work on a single machine.
> 
> I would also add that although it isn't possible to have a IH-less
> bridge (see previous email), it is perfectly feasible to have multiple
> bridges per IH (although this isn't implemented yet). This could be
> useful if one of your bridges ran its instantiation functions across the
> network stack. The SuperCollider bridge will work like this (it will tap
> into SCServer's OSC messaging protocol). In this case it might be
> desirable to have the integra_sc3_bridge loaded into the same IH as say
> integra_pd_bridge if your collection is spread across those two apps.
> 
I think we should discuss this more. I think it would be useful to be
able to have multiple bridges per IH. We also have a slight terminology
problem (perhaps the confusion in this thread is evidence of that?) with
the IH proxy that doesn't actually host any instances, only a
bridge. What about letting the bridge encompass the proxy functionality?
This is obviously purely conceptual, nothing in the implementation
really has to change.

Thanks Stephen for shedding some light on our confusions!

best

/Henrik