Re: [gupnp] gupnp-av

Hey,

On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 19:47 +0300, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
> Hey!
>
> On 8/6/07, Jorn Baayen <jorn@openedhand.com> wrote:
>
> > > > That would be nice, but the problem here is in the notion of compatible
> > > > pairs of servers and renderers. Not all media on one server may be
> > > > playable by the same renderer.
> > >
> > > I must admit i didn't think of that but would having separate
> > > GUPnPAVConnection (or is GUPnPAVPair a better name) for each
> > > compatible mediatype be a bad idea? An abstraction for 'Browse' can be
> > > provided as a method of this object but it would only list the
> > > contents that are of the mediatype this pair object represents. What
> > > do you say?
> >
> > I don't think that should be necessary because browsing per media format
> > is a rather unlikely use case (very confusing: "Hmm, I thought I had
> > that song"). I think it would make more sense for a UI to flag
> > problematic items as unplayable when playing to a particular renderer.
> >
>
> Yeah! you are right but that kills AVControlPoint (again :)) but we
> can still provide this Connection object, whose constructor take two
> proxies, one for mediaserver and another for mediarenderer. Also it
> would be nice to have a nice API to find a compatible mediarenderer,
> given a protocolInfo.

The only thing a Connection object would be able to wrap sensibly is
ConnectionMananger.PrepareForConnection(). I'm not sure whether this
would be worth it as it is a rather simple bit of logic.

Wrapping SetTransportURI would be problematic because it wants to be fed
a piece of DIDL xml with metadata - now do we expose this in the API as
taking an xmlDoc, an xmlNode, an xml string, or a free-form list of
metadata? Again, I don't see an obvious superior choice.

Thanks,

Jorn

--
To unsubscribe send a mail to gupnp+unsubscribe\@o-hand.com