JBranciforte

I am creating a system for use in pluggo plug-ins that will allow for the pp and plugmultiparam objects to be in a separate subpatch. Right now, I am communicating with the UI through pattrstorage @outputmode 1 and routing the names of each interface object to the appropriate pp, etc. Then on the way back, I prepend the object name to the output of pp and send back to pattrstorage. I am curious if there is a more efficient way to do this without pattrstorage. Would using indivudually named pattr objects be more or less efficient? Any thoughts?

I am creating a system for use in pluggo plug-ins that will allow for the pp and plugmultiparam objects to be in a separate subpatch.  Right now, I am communicating with the UI through pattrstorage @outputmode 1 and routing the names of each interface object to the appropriate pp, etc.  Then on the way back, I prepend the object name to the output of pp and send back to pattrstorage.  I am curious if there is a more efficient way to do this without pattrstorage.  Would using indivudually named pattr objects be more or less efficient?  Any thoughts?


efficiency-communicating-with-ui-objects-remotely

autopattr might qualify as more efficient, 

but you shouldn't need to worry too much about efficiency with pattr; i would personally be more worried about your synthesis.

btw: even if all of your UIobjects are at the top level, you can refer to that locale via pattrhub from a subpatch...

p.s. in the future please post stuff like this to the pluggo forum...

autopattr might qualify as more efficient, 
but you shouldn't need to worry too much about efficiency with pattr; i would personally be more worried about your synthesis.

btw: even if all of your UIobjects are at the top level, you can refer to that locale via pattrhub from a subpatch...
see the help file.

p.s.  in the future please post stuff like this to the pluggo forum...


As a side question, I am wondering if will changing the outputmode to 2, 3 , or 4 will speed things up by eliminating loops when interface objects are changed...

just depends on the functionality that you need.

if you were to post a patch illustrating this issue, it would be easier to help.

modes 2/3 seem reaonable for various setups pluggo; but it is difficult to conjecture without an example.

if you simply need to get info to the objs, then it would certainly speed things up.

just depends on the functionality that you need.
if you were to post a patch illustrating this issue, it would be easier to help.
modes 2/3 seem reaonable for various setups pluggo; but it is difficult to conjecture without an example.

Here is the simplest way I can present the issue:

i understand your issue a bit better now;

in regards to your original question, there are no loops involved in this process, per se.

you're simply sending to/receiving from 2 destinations instead of 1.

unless you have a specific need for using an outputmode, i think it will be much more efficient to skip it altogether and go for something more direct (also saves on the usage of the route/prepend pair for each param):

i understand your issue a bit better now;
in regards to your original question, there are no loops involved in this process, per se.
you're simply sending to/receiving from 2 destinations instead of 1.
unless you have a specific need for using an outputmode, i think it will be much more efficient to skip it altogether and go for something more direct (also saves on the usage of the route/prepend pair for each param):

Efficiency: communicating with UI objects remotely