Bug 18 - The response of 'GET CHANNEL INFO' command does not conform to LSCP specification
Summary: The response of 'GET CHANNEL INFO' command does not conform to LSCP specifica...
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: LinuxSampler
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LSCP (show other bugs)
Version: SVN Trunk
Hardware: Other Linux
: P2 normal
Assignee: Christian Schoenebeck
URL:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-05-24 21:30 CEST by Grigor Iliev
Modified: 2008-12-10 23:17 CET (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments
patch for lscpserver.cpp (1.51 KB, patch)
2005-05-24 21:32 CEST, Grigor Iliev 		Details
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Grigor Iliev 2005-05-24 21:30:27 CEST 
The following categories returns -1 instead of "NONE" when they are not set. 
 - AUDIO_OUTPUT_DEVICE 
 - MIDI_INPUT_DEVICE 
  
The following categories are set to -1 but they are not specified in LSCP draft, so 
not sure about them. 
  - INSTRUMENT_NR 
  - MIDI_INPUT_PORT 
  
btw INSTRUMENT_NAME also is not specified in LSCP and return "NONE" 
 
Sending patch for lscpserver.cpp
Comment 1 Grigor Iliev 2005-05-24 21:32:06 CEST 
Created attachment 6 [details]
patch for lscpserver.cpp
Comment 2 Christian Schoenebeck 2005-05-24 22:14:14 CEST 
I will postpone this after I got the release packaged and out. Because it might 
break compatibility with liblscp and qsampler.
Comment 3 Rui Nuno Capela 2005-05-25 23:54:14 CEST 
Altough it might not conform to current LSCP spec, the AUDIO_OUTPUT_DEVICE and 
MIDI_INPUT_DEVICE fields of the GET CHANNEL INFO command result set are 
assumed to be integers on liblscp.  
 
The proposed change will surely break liblscp (0.2.9) and qsampler (0.1.0) 
behavior, as reading atoi("NONE") leads to a device number zero (0), which is 
a valid device-id and not minus-one (-1), which is not. 
 
However, the point is taken, and should be addressed in near term.
Comment 4 Christian Schoenebeck 2008-12-02 22:19:55 CET 
What should we do with this issue? I guess there's no point in modifying the 
implementation anymore, since it would introduce the mentioned backward 
compatibility problems.

Should we just update the LSCP specs regarding the mentioned lack of 
clearification and mark this report as resolved?
Comment 5 Grigor Iliev 2008-12-03 12:16:18 CET 
ok, I'm fine with that.
Comment 6 Christian Schoenebeck 2008-12-10 23:16:58 CET 
Ok, fixed the LSCP sepcs as suggested.