[dvblast-devel] configuration inconsistency

[Thomas Kernen]

On 2/2/10 4:08 PM, Jakub Paweł Głazik wrote:
> W dniu 2 lutego 2010 15:56 użytkownik Andy Gatward
> <a.j.gatward at reading.ac.uk>  napisał:
>> On 02/02/2010 14:46, "Jakub Paweł Głazik"<zytek at nuxi.pl>  wrote:
>>
>>> While switching to dvblast for my IPTV DVB headend I see it difficult
>>> in batch-scripting dvblast setups. One has to configure both the
>>> command line and the config file for outputs, which requires
>>> additional bash-magic when one wants to have one config file for each
>>> dvb card/channel.
>>
>> How is this difficult?  Attached is an init script that does exactly this.
>> It looks in a directory for files called adaptor<n>.cfg, then parses the
>> configuration file for a line starting with #@cli, using this as the CLI
>> switches.
>
> This is exactly what I wanted to write after finishing my coffee. ;-)
> Although I think that dvblast should do something like this out of the
> box, not requiring everyone to do their own script magic.
>
>>> Any thoughts/plans for implementing this ?
>>
>> There are only plans from my side for implementing output to pipe / file.
>
> As more output option come, it would nice to put in in a one-for-all
> consistent configuration file.
>
>> IMHO, HTTP is pretty pointless for the target 'market' for the software.
>
> Multicast su?ks IMVHO. Here we have a lot more success with TCP stream
> delivery (packet loss, cheap switches with mcast issues etc),
> incorporating simple http proxies in multiple locations. No problem in
> delivering IPTV from one end of the country to another.  ;-)

Then IMHO you are in the wrong target group for this application. Most 
of those using DVBlast are running multicast on hardware that can 
actually support it. I don't believe that DVBlast intends on solving 
poor multicast implementation from low end devices by working around 
using HTTP based streaming solution. It doesn't scale for the target 
deployment sizes most of the contributors (and users) are working with.

My 2 cents,
Thomas

>
>> I found getstream's configuration to be a real pain, requiring many lines to
>> do something very simple.  YMMV.
>
> Well yes, it is a little bit overwhelming but keeps all parameters in one place.
>
>
>