exclude a pattrstorage for its upward pattr hierachy

    Jan 18 2011 | 2:23 pm
    Dear Maxers,
    I've been reading the numerous posts about pattrstorage and bpatchers/abstraction and posts about pattr-system hierarchy but I couldn't find a solution for my problem.
    I have several bpatchers/abstractions in a main top-level patcher, including several copies of the same bpatcher/abstraction. Each bpatcher/abstraction includes an autopattr and a pattrstorage. The top level patcher also has its pattrstorage. I know that with the greedy attribute I can choose if my top-level pattrstorage sees the downward pattr-managed variables or only the other pattrstorage objects. I also know that I can activate/deactivate objects (including other pattrstorage) for presets management and files. However, what I would like to do is kind of beyond that... I would like to totally exclude the pattrstorage (and downward object hierarchy) of some specific bpatcher/abstraction that I will manage locally. While other bpatcher/abstraction (and their whole downward pattr hierarchy) remain visible from the top-level. Such an exclusion would ideally be managed inside the bpatcher/abstraction so that each time I copy or duplicate it, I don't have to tell the top-level pattrstorage if it has to manage this one or not.
    Do you know a way to achieve that ?

    • Jan 18 2011 | 2:37 pm
      Here is an example :
      Save this patch as Visible :
      Save this patch as Invisible
      Put them in your path and create this top-level patcher :
    • Jan 26 2011 | 11:33 am
      Hi Maxers
      Nobody has any idea about this ? Seriously ? That's pity, I didn't solve it yet...
    • Apr 16 2011 | 3:22 pm
      Hi Ben,
      I am facing the same problem, i.e. I would like to exclude pattrstorage objects from the clients being seen by a main pattrstorage in greedy mode, and I did not found any nice way to do that.
      The best would be that a pattrstorage also has an "@invisible" attribute like pattr objects do, but unfortunately this is not the case. Maybe a feature request ?
      So the only way I envision is that to notify to the main pattrstorage to unactivate the objects that you don't want to see. In case of dynamic patching it's harder but there are anyway possibilities.
    • Apr 17 2011 | 9:55 am
      Here is a possible solution for my case, but yours is almost equivalent:
      The "main" patch:
      The "visible" patch (it's the same as yours)
      The "Invisible" patch
      In my case it works well. Just remember that you have to reinstantiate the pattrstorage each time you modify the patch.