liblo-devel Mailing List for LibLO

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:02:46 +0100, alex wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm wondering about the status of timestamped OSC packets in liblo.  I'd
> like to timestamp a packet so it's queued with some precision.  It's
> certainly improved since the first time I've tried it but still is far
> from precise - resulting in very perceptible skips and jumps.
> 
> However maybe I'm just using it wrong.  Has anyone managed to get it to
> work better?

It's still buggy, there's some error in the maths I think, I ooked at it
ages ago, but couldn't get it right.

- Steve

Hi,

I'm wondering about the status of timestamped OSC packets in liblo.  I'd
like to timestamp a packet so it's queued with some precision.  It's
certainly improved since the first time I've tried it but still is far
from precise - resulting in very perceptible skips and jumps.

However maybe I'm just using it wrong.  Has anyone managed to get it to
work better?

Best

alex

Hi Camille,

The handlers are checked in the order they are registered.
So register your wildcard handler last.

After you add a new method you should reregister the wildcard
hadnler (using lo_server_thread_del_method() and then
lo_server_thread_add_method() again).

Martin

On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 11:16:39PM +0200, Cam // NE=CFMO wrote:
> Hi !
>=20
> In my application, I would like to first get a notification of =20
> unregistered methods, and register those new methods but with a =20
> different method handler.
>=20
> The problem is that it seems that wildcard handlers have more =20
> precedence over "well-defined" handlers.
>=20
> Is there a way to change this behaviour, or am I doing something wrong?
>=20
> By the way, I really like the model of this library, it is very clear =20
> and efficient.
>=20
> Thanks for any suggestion!
>=20
> Best Regards,
> Camille

Hi !

In my application, I would like to first get a notification of  
unregistered methods, and register those new methods but with a  
different method handler.

The problem is that it seems that wildcard handlers have more  
precedence over "well-defined" handlers.

Is there a way to change this behaviour, or am I doing something wrong?

By the way, I really like the model of this library, it is very clear  
and efficient.

Thanks for any suggestion!

Best Regards,
Camille