When setting up a complex routing set, it would be much faster if I could just assign a set of ports as a group — say “Controllers” and “Synths” or “Clock Receivers” and then just set a single route from a port to a group, or between to groups. In my setup, this would cut 115 routes down to 15 individual or group routes.
This would also allow for a much simpler view of the routes list, which becomes pretty unwieldy quickly when you’ve got a lot of devices — just have a radio button for whether it shows ports or groups, and maybe an extra column in the ports view to distinguish individually created routes from group routes. Groups could be turned off by default so folks who don’t need them don’t have to see them. Would be totally fine with e.g. needing to set up groups names in Midi Translator and then populating them with ports inside the BomeBox.
I agree this would be a nice feature. I will pass your suggestion along!
I was also thinking of.
A way to create virtual ports and routing with an editable text file (like JSON or XML). This way users could share the configurations via the file instead of each user having to manually update their configuration in a GUI. Also sophisticated users could write script so create and manipulate the configuration files.
A way to create “Application Groups”. So that you can have different computers on the same network only discover computers within their own application group. This would allow better separation, for instance , if you have two applications on the same network that you really don’t want to talk to each other they would only accept connections within their own application group. In fact, two different applications on one computer could maybe belong to a different application group lie a lighting application on one group and an audio application on another.