5. April 2012 at 21:43 #540
I read the FAQ, and I’m really excited about the possibility of you adding the OSCp5 library to PR0C0D1N6. I can’t stress this enough. I’ve been looking for the ideal means to design custom interfaces to communicate with Pure Data, and Processing is a great tool for this (other than writing my own app, which I cannot do at the moment). It would be a great feature that would put your app at the very top of the “design your own interface” list.6. April 2012 at 11:37 #542
Hi Epic Jefferson,
I am excited as well because of the possibility to have OSC. Technically, it shouldn’t be a big thing to implement and I have all parts of the puzzle here, just waiting to be set together.
However, I’m currently still struggling/planning conceptually with two issues.
First, this will break HTML compatibility, because OSC must be implemented natively and won’t work in any other browser. There are HTML5 Websockets, but the implementation is not yet far enough to make it work well with only HTML/JS. While this isn’t a showstopper (at all), I don’t know yet how to integrate and communicate this fact with the upcoming “Export as HTML-WebApp”-Feature. My main goal is to keep everything as simple and straightforward as possible.
Second, it would surely be useful to keep it compatible to OSCp5. But, to be honest, I think OSCp5 isn’t designed very well and seems to me extremely over-complicated. I wouldn’t be happy to re-implement a library I don’t like (code wise & aesthetically). I could go into details and rant about TCP/IP implementations while most OSC clients use UDP – or the necessity of forcing “end-users” to deal with byte-buffers and buffer-sizes, but you’ll surely get the point…
So, I have to solve these two questions first. I am sure the first one is solvable easily, and I’m mostly sure at this point that I will develop a PR0C0D1N6-only OSC object that will not be OSCp5 compatible. But instead it will be very easy to use.
About the timeframe:
I am currently working on a bigger update which I hope is finished until end of summer. Then I also have (hopefully) decided on a way to integrate OSC. That means, OSC will definitely come, but I better not dare to estimate any timeframe.
Michael6. April 2012 at 22:09 #545
It’s great news to hear that you are strongly considering implementing OSC (I’m not sure why other people aren’t flooding your forum and e-mail with this request). I, for one, don’t mind that you develop your own version of OSC for PR0C0D1N6. On the contrary, if it’s more straight-foward and simple to use, better. And if it’s better, maybe it could become the standard OSC library for Processing.
I mentioned PR0C0D1N6 on my page if you want to take a look. http://www.epicjefferson.com/2012/04/multitouch-in-processing-js/
Have you seen Charlie Robert’s ‘Control’ app? I’m not sure how similar your processes are, but since Control is open source, maybe you can get an idea of how to solve the OSC problem with your app. I think he uses webKit or something like that.
About the “Export as HTML-WebApp”-Feature. Is this something that’ll be added to Processing in general or PR0C0D1N6 specifically? Could you explain it a little bit?7. April 2012 at 0:59 #546
cheers for the mention.
“Export as HTML-Webapp” will be a feature of PR0C0D1N6. You will be able to export your sketch as zipped HTML-project containing the pde and corresponding HTML & js files, so you can upload the sketch to your server and enjoy other people with your creations :-)
The topic ‘Adding OSC’ is closed to new replies.