Re: [sc-dev] MIDI sysex

[Tim Kreger <tkreger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Cheers

Tim







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.
>
> Comments?
>
> RJK
> _______________________________________________
> sc-dev mailing list
> sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-dev