Menu
▾
▴
Re: [liblo] Deleting a given handler for a method
|
From: Stephen S. <rad...@gm...> - 2010-03-03 21:41:33
|
I agree, I think the current _del_method() is a little less useful than this suggestion. How about being able to specify the path, but default to removing all methods with the provided handler if path=0? Steve On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Philippe Mougin <pm...@ac...> wrote: > Hi Cam, > > I thought including path and typespec might be useful when the same handler has been registered for multiple methods and one want to unregister it for only a given method. But I don't know if this is a need in real-life use cases. In my case, the simpler API you describe would be ok. > > Thx > > Phil > > Le 28 févr. 2010 à 11:37, Camille Troillard a écrit : > >> Hi Philippe, >> >> It looks like a sensitive idea. >> I actually didn't know that it was possible to register multiple handlers for one method. >> >> Why not making the API as simple as : >> >> lo_server_del_method_handler (lo_server s, lo_method_handler h) >> >> I guess we just need to walk through the chain of handlers, and remove every occurrences of the one that we want. What do you think? >> I am not sure why path and typespec would be needed, or maybe was it just a side effect of writing an email late a night? :-) >> >> >> Best, >> Cam >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Philippe Mougin <pm...@ac...> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Sometimes in my application I can have multiple different handlers registered for the same method. For example, I can be in a state similar by the one created by: >> >> lo_server_add_method(localOSCServer, "/foo/bar", "f", foo_handler, NULL); >> lo_server_add_method(localOSCServer, "/foo/bar", "f", bar_handler, NULL); >> >> Now, I'd like to unregister bar_handler while keeping foo_handler registered. I don't see how to do that with the current API (seems that I can only remove the whole "/foo/bar" method with all associated handlers). >> >> I may well be overlooking something as I'm new to liblo (besides, it's 1 a.m.) >> >> If not, do you think it would be a good idea to extend the API with something like lo_server_del_method_handler (lo_server s, const char *path, const char *typespec, lo_method_handler h), which would remove h from the handlers associated with the given path/typespecs? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Philippe Mougin >> http://www.fscript.org >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> liblo-devel mailing list >> lib...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/liblo-devel >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev_______________________________________________ >> liblo-devel mailing list >> lib...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/liblo-devel > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > liblo-devel mailing list > lib...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/liblo-devel > |
