[chuck-users] Shred blocking main shred

Gonzalo gonzalo at dense13.com
Mon Aug 27 19:12:50 EDT 2018


I didn't know what MPI was, just had a quick check (only got the gist of 
it). I'm learning a lot of things through Chuck. :) I think it would be 
interesting, but might be a bit tricky to implement with chuck? I don't 
know enough though, just wondering.

My approach might have been a bit clumsy. I had two situations to solve:

- Sending an array of primitives of an unknown length. This is 
relatively easy to solve, adding all the args to the OscMessage in a loop.

- Sending a complex type that includes mixed primitive types. This was a 
bit trickier, and some conversion needs to happen anyway when using time 
or dur.

My (probably a bit inefficient) solution was to .stringify and 
.destringify my objects (using Tokenizer), and then just sending a 
string over OSC. It's a bit delicate/error prone, but it works, and once 
I've added those methods to a class, it becomes quite easy to use, for 
the actual communication. For instance, to transfer myObject would look 
something like this:

// The sender. Sets up an OscOut, then:
oscOut.start("my/adress/pattern");
oscOut.add(myObject.stringify());
oscOut.send();


// The receiver. Gets an OscMsg, then:
if (oscMsg.address == "...") {
   oscMsg.getString(0) => string stringifiedVersion;
   MyClass.destringify(stringifiedVersion) @=> MyClass myObject;
}

I've also encapsulated the sender part into a method to be able to 
simply write:

this.response("my/adress/pattern", myObject);

Is this a decent approach? The type conversion to/from string can be a 
bit fiddly, but it seems to work. One thing I like is that complex types 
composed of other complex types are easy to (de)stringify, calling their 
children's methods.

In the spirit of doing things the "wrong" way... ;) (I like that!)
Gz



On 28.08.18 07:31, mike clemow wrote:
> Hey that's great!
> 
> Do you think it's worth building a library and standard framework around 
> sending/receiving those types of messages over OSC? A sort of Chuck/OSC 
> version of Message Passing Interface. Or do you think that OSC is 
> general enough to do the job all by itself?
> 
> Curious what your learnings were!
> 
> Congrats!
> 
> -Mike
> 
> --
> Michael Clemow
> he/him/his
> Artist/Composer/Sound Designer
> http://michaelclemow.com <http://michaelclemow.com/>
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 5:03 AM Gonzalo <gonzalo at dense13.com 
> <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Quick wrap up of this thread. I did what Mike suggested, and it works
>     great, thanks for the pointers! It was a bit of work getting to
>     transfer
>     all the required data structures properly via OSC, but worth the
>     effort. :)
> 
> 
>     On 16.08.18 10:28, mike clemow wrote:
>      > Hey!
>      >
>      > Been a long time since I posted here. In the spirit of doing
>     things the
>      > "wrong" way (which is what we're all about, right? ;) You _might_
>      > consider architecting your app using two (or more) concurrent
>     instances
>      > of ChucK; one with your synthesis stuff, and one doing your heavy
>      > computation. The one doing the math could be set up to have a
>     local OSC
>      > API for sending the parameters in and your other code could just
>     wait on
>      > the response (advancing time in the main chuck instance, while the
>      > calculations are being done elsewhere). You would have to have some
>      > structure around the communications, but there are ways to make that
>      > easier with functors (paging Michael Heuer).
>      >
>      > The good thing about this is that you get to take advantage of your
>      > computer's multiple processors, since Chuck is single-threaded
>     (last I
>      > checked). Besides, if your calculations are that intense, what's
>     another
>      > couple of milliseconds for OSC communication? Plus, your
>     calculations
>      > might run faster this way... maybe.
>      >
>      > Or don't consider that because it's crazy. ;)  Fwiw, I've
>     definitely run
>      > into applications that required multiple Chuck instances talking
>     to each
>      > other, although usually I'm trying to use multiple sound cards
>      > simultaneously. I've also abused named pipes in service of
>      > inter-application communications, although I really don't
>     recommend that.
>      >
>      > Best,
>      > Mike
>      >
>      > --
>      > Michael Clemow
>      > he/him/his
>      > Artist/Composer/Sound Designer
>      > http://michaelclemow.com <http://michaelclemow.com/>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:39 PM Gonzalo <gonzalo at dense13.com
>     <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com>
>      > <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     I just did a quick test putting 1::samp all over the place
>     :), but so
>      >     far no joy. But this is interesting, I'll explore it properly
>     when I
>      >     have a bit more time. If I can locate where most of the time
>     gets used,
>      >     I can focus on that. Thanks!
>      >
>      >     Gonzalo
>      >
>      >     On 16.08.18 01:36, Jack Atherton wrote:
>      >      > Hi!
>      >      >
>      >      > Shreds block when you don’t advance time. If you don’t
>     advance time,
>      >      > then ChucK assumes you need all the current computation
>     for the next
>      >      > audio sample. Is there a place during your long
>     computation where
>      >     you
>      >      > could wait one sample every so often (1::samp => now;)? For
>      >     example, in
>      >      > the body of a loop.
>      >      >
>      >      > Jack
>      >      >
>      >      > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:38 AM Gonzalo
>     <gonzalo at dense13.com <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com>
>      >     <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com>>
>      >      > <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com>
>     <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com <mailto:gonzalo at dense13.com>>>> wrote:
>      >      >
>      >      >     Hi,
>      >      >
>      >      >     I'm working on a big project (www.whole-play.com
>     <http://www.whole-play.com>
>      >     <http://www.whole-play.com>
>      >      >     <http://www.whole-play.com>), tons of classes, tons
>      >      >     of calculations happening at various points. My problem is
>      >     that some of
>      >      >     these calculations take too long, up to a few seconds. I
>      >     thought if I
>      >      >     run them in their own shred, the main shred would be
>      >     unaffected, but
>      >      >     it's not the case, and the music stops during those
>      >     processes. Maybe
>      >      >     I'm
>      >      >     doing something wrong. I can't post sample code
>     because it's many
>      >      >     classes interacting, but I thought maybe someone has
>     ideas on
>      >     how to
>      >      >     tackle this issue?
>      >      >
>      >      >     Thanks!
>      >      >     Gonzalo
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >     --
>      >      > http://dense13.com
>      >      > http://www.whole-play.com
>      >      >     _______________________________________________
>      >      >     chuck-users mailing list
>      >      > chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>
>      >     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>>
>      >      >     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>
>      >     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>>>
>      >      > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > _______________________________________________
>      >      > chuck-users mailing list
>      >      > chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>
>      >     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>>
>      >      > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>      >      >
>      >
>      >     --
>      > http://dense13.com
>      > http://www.whole-play.com
>      >     _______________________________________________
>      >     chuck-users mailing list
>      > chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>
>      >     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>>
>      > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > chuck-users mailing list
>      > chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>
>      > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>      >
> 
>     -- 
>     http://dense13.com
>     http://www.whole-play.com
>     _______________________________________________
>     chuck-users mailing list
>     chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>     <mailto:chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu>
>     https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> 

-- 
http://dense13.com
http://www.whole-play.com


More information about the chuck-users mailing list