[vlc-devel] Re: Initial rtci interface
mfmbusiness at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 13 16:25:18 CET 2004
Good question. I'm suggesting this because none of the control interfaces
presently available (that I saw) does what I need.
--Able to be understood by a human being, tested/debugged/used, without
overly exotic overall structures. In other words, if the message payload
becomes too complex, not able to be generated by a human being, we still end
up with an i-need-something-useable-by-a-person. At times a normal person
needs to be able to do things, wants to be able to, say, adjust a marquee,
insert a logo -- don't want to force them to write a complex program to do
this, if it's something that could/should be doable over a vanilla socket
--Reasonably "lean" -- don't want to have as many bytes of object wrapper as
the control message payload.
I'm not a software person (as you are all more than well aware :), but a
systems person. I see our staff spend a LOT of time when they get into
XML/wrapper coding. The simpler interfaces, the kinds of things that really
can be operated by a human at a console, tend to be less problematic.
It is an excellent question, though, just that if there was a Corba update I
would still need/want something useable without big wrappers.
From: vlc-devel-bounce at videolan.org [mailto:vlc-devel-bounce at videolan.org]
On Behalf Of Sigmund Augdal
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 10:09 AM
To: vlc-devel at videolan.org
Subject: [vlc-devel] Re: Initial rtci interface
Is there a very compelling reason to implement this from scrach, and not use
a existing standard defined protocol like ORB (someone tried indeed this) or
I really dislike the idea of inventing the wheel over and over again, and
such systems are designed and thouroughly thought through before. My vote
goes for beefing up the corba module
This is the vlc-devel mailing-list, see http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
To unsubscribe, please read http://developers.videolan.org/lists.html
More information about the vlc-devel