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

Re: [Sc-devel] server naming conventions cleanup?

Hi Ross,

The real problem is that the design document (Server-Architecture) does not use the term Graph or GraphDef for the
server side constructs.

The easiest thing to do would be to add some comments clarifying the relation between a unit generator and a UGen, a GraphDef and a SynthDef and a Synth and a Graph.

If you still want to change the names, ServerSynthDef and ServerSynth seem the clearest.

But I would suggest giving up on this for the moment as there is so much dust in the air already.

Getting a final release for free software is like trying to close a dam - the closer you get the greater the turbulence


On Feb 8, 2008, at 1:34 AM, Ross Bencina wrote:

JMC wrote:
There are ugens floating around written by people who have moved on
are probably never going to recompile them. These will be broken
forever. OK, Well they didn't release the source code, so maybe it is

Actually existing binaries shouldn't be broken if all we are doing is
renaming things. The binaries will still work unless the struct layouts change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only breakage will be with
the source code.

A GraphDef is not a SynthDef. They are different types. One is the
result of a transformation of the other. In pseudo Haskell notation
you'd have this:

SCLang :: SynthDef -> array of bytes
SCSynth :: array of bytes -> GraphDef

I think it would be slightly more confusing to have the SCSynth object
and the SCLang object have the same name since it would then require
an additional word to disambiguate which you are talking about. But I
don't really care that much.

I see.

It's difficult for me to make an assessment about which is less confusing in general. Does anyone else have an opinion about making things more/ less

In my view:

- I understand the distinction James makes above but for me it would have been a lot easier to understand the server source if Graph and GraphDef had been named such that I could related them to the domain concepts of Synth
and SynthDef.

- "Graph" is a pretty generic term. Given that we already have another graph
(of Nodes) it get's pretty confusing.

- The compiled scsynth GraphDef is more of a
StaticExecutionScheduleAndBufferAllocation than a Graph.

Comments anyone? (please!)

Best wishes


Sc-devel mailing list