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

Re: [sc-dev] Another potential Buffer method *streamCollection

I had considered wrapping this all up in setn, but decided against it. setn as it stands is pretty close to its OSC equivalent, and what I've implemented does have more overhead. I figure you pretty much should know how big the collection is that you're trying to send as if you don't it might be bigger than the buffer anyway. If in doubt however one could use my method to be sure. If it's smaller than the packet limit it will go in one OSC message.

Does anyone feel strongly that this should be wrapped into setn?

The other thing is that by having separate methods it makes it clear what's happening. I'm going to add instance method versions of both this and the file writing method I wrote, so that gives you choice with large data sets on a local machine.


On 22 Nov 2004, at 18:33, Charlls Quarra wrote:

This sounds great. It occurred to me that is not good
design to not provide the chunk splitting
functionality already in the Buffer.setn method, or at
least it didnt occurred to me a reason why one would
not want such splitting to be done there (unless this
is some kind of optimization, but no idea really)

 --- Scott Wilson <sdwilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
Okay, since the fromCollection method I added in my
previous candidate
won't work for sending large amounts of data to a
non-local machine, I
thought I'd try to come up with a method which chops
it into convenient

	*streamCollection { arg server, collection, wait =
0.0, action;
		var collstream, buffer, func, collsize, bufnum,
bundsize, pos;
		collstream = CollStream.new;
		collstream.collection = collection;
		collsize = collection.size.postln;
		server = server ? Server.default;
		bufnum = server.bufferAllocator.alloc(1);
		buffer = super.newCopyArgs(server, bufnum,
collection.size, 1)
		// this will wait for synced.
			// 1626 largest setn size with an alloc
			bundsize = min(1626, collsize - collstream.pos);
bufnum, 0, bundsize]
				++ Array.fill(bundsize, {collstream.next})}));

			// wait = 0 might not be safe
			// maybe okay with tcp
			pos = collstream.pos;
			while({pos < collsize}, {
				// 1633 max size for setn under udp
				bundsize = min(1633, collsize - collstream.pos);
				server.listSendMsg(["b_setn", bufnum, pos,
					++ Array.fill(bundsize, {collstream.next}));
				pos = collstream.pos;


Then you can go:


a = Array.fill(2000000,{ rrand(0.0,1.0) });
c = CollStream.new;
c.collection = a;
b = Buffer.streamCollection(s, a, 0.0, {arg buf;
b.get(1999999, {|msg| [msg , a[1999999]].postln});


I thought the wait time would be safest, but this
works with a 2000000
sized Array on my machine with a wait of 0, so maybe
it's less of an
issue than I thought. Could maybe be more elegant.

Thoughts, comments, and criticisms appreciated.

S.> _______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list

Running on:
1.5 Ghz P4
asus v800x chipset
RH9 CCRMA-patched linux


¡Llevate a Yahoo! en tu Unifón!
Ahora podés usar Yahoo! Messenger en tu Unifón, en cualquier momento y lugar.
Encontrá más información en: http://ar.mobile.yahoo.com/sms.html

sc-dev mailing list