[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [sc-dev] MIDI sysex

Hi Ron,
I think continuous controllers should still be dealt with as channel commands although I can see that they might fit into both.

I think sysex is still going to need its own handler as it has its own problems which are exclusive(pardon the pun) to its functionality. Each MIDI instrument tends to have minor differences in their data formatting/encoding which makes it difficult to decode incoming data into meaningful quantities(of course if we only want dump functionality this is less of an issue).

I just had a cursory glance at coremidi docs and noticed that sysex is dealt with separately.

All in all I think sysex implementation will be a reasobly major addition to SC3.



On Monday, December 8, 2003, at 03:15  AM, rkuivila@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hi all,

Some time ago, Julian suggested adopting the OSCresponder style for
MIDI input handling. At the time, we decided to leave well enough alone.
But this may be the best way to incorporate support of sysex commands.

Here is a basic model:

MIDI commands are broken into:  portID command channel ...args
(command is the top niibble: $80, $90, etc..; channel is the lower nibble)

MIDIresponder would select based on command and channel;
MIDIpathResponder could select on portID and other args (for system commands,
continuous controllers, etc).

Methods like
MIDIIn-noteOn_ { arg func; MIDIresponder(16r90,nil,func).add}
could be included to maintain the current interface.


sc-dev mailing list