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

[ronald kuivila <rkuivila@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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


RJK


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
> > deserved.
>
> 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
> understandable?
>
> 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
>
> Ross.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sc-devel mailing list
> Sc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-devel