[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sc-dev] HID update (and forward to 3.7)
On 23.11.2013, at 21:27, Scott Wilson <i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2013, at 19:30, Marije Baalman <nescivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It's a different thing, to my feeling, given that there is an explicit
>> link to a physical device and its controls.
> Well this can also be true of OSC and MIDI devices.
> For OSC devices, I thought it made sense to build classes on top of lower level send (NetAddr) and receive (OSCFunc) stuff. Not sure if that makes as much sense with HID. Hmm…
Hm, yes, this was just a guess, I just ask because it is very seductive in OOP to represent things as objects, but not always the bets model. I agree that in OSC communication you have similar structures and there are also HID devices that send OSC.
The question is whether any state of the device needs to be represented as object state (like sc server), or whether it is enough to receive status change messages and do any bookkeeping yourself if needed. If it is more like the server, then indeed the HIDDevice may be the best way to go.
For now the main thing is that under the hood everything works, so the responder issue is not such an important thing yet.
sc-dev mailing list
info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml