Is this the right approach ? (2 Viewers)

[pastimer]

I have some doubts about the client plugin. Is this the right approach? I would have expected the tv-servers to show up as devices in the setup. It looks to me that this would have simplified thinks. Scanning the 'server-device' would translate to selecting the available channels from a server, comparable to the scan of a fysical device. These channels could then be selected as local favourites, just like we do with channels from other sources. It would be possible to mix channels from servers (dvb-s) with those from a local dvb-t tuner. All this would not require major changes in MP itself. I am sure the designers/developers have thought along those lines, but why has a different approach come out?

This comment should not be taken as critisism, merely as curiosity. I'm a big fan of MP.

 

[Roberdin]

Why would you have a local DVB-T tuner? Simply create a slave server on your local computer. Then all of the channels, including those from your local DVB-T card, can be appropriately set-up on the master server.

 

[pastimer]

Why would you have a local DVB-T tuner? Simply create a slave server on your local computer. Then all of the channels, including those from your local DVB-T card, can be appropriately set-up on the master server.

Yes, that's true. And this would of course still be possible with the proposed approach. So you're missing the point here a bit i think.

Eppo

 

[Roberdin]

Perhaps your method would work, but I don't think it is particularly desirable. If Client A schedules a recording, then under your scheme, both Client A and the server would have to be running to carry out that recording (because Client A would 'tune' to Server A and begin recording). And if Client B wants to watch something else at the same time, it will not know that there are no free cards on the server. Furthermore if Client C wants to watch a recording made by Client A then it can't, because it is stored on a different computer.

Also, changing the configuration of the server (say, channels) will need you to change all client settings to re-add those channels. Essentially, your system would seem to have unnecessary duplication of data which should be centralised.

Now, if you centralise the recording system, the EPG system, et c. then you've basically got what you have now.

 

[pastimer]

The main reason for this approach would be to make Mediaportal 'lean and mean' (again). TVserver as a virtual device would simplify matters a lot. Note the startup-time for MP Client; first MP is loaded and then the majority of it's components are replaced by tvserver plugins...
An example of the approach i would like can be seen in Alt-dvb.
Mediaportal should be much more component oriented and a virtual device for remote dvb-sources would be an excellent starting point.
No need to handle concurrent use of remote devices, who cares, later, maybe?
Concentrate on performance and error-free operations of essential parts.

Take a look at http://www.altdvb.ro/ (yes, lean and mean) for a nice example of an implementation of client-server in the way i would like to see it in MP.

 

[Laban]

I have to agree with Roberdin. Though it would be very nice if the TV-Server could act as a emulated DVB-T card for usage in other potentiel clients. F.e MCE.

But that's more like a potential extra feature that would be nice to have for those who likes the flashy MCE gui and don't like all the additional features/configurability that MP gives you

 

[pastimer]

I have to agree with Roberdin. Though it would be very nice if the TV-Server could act as a emulated DVB-T card for usage in other potentiel clients. F.e MCE.

But that's more like a potential extra feature that would be nice to have for those who likes the flashy MCE gui and don't like all the additional features/configurability that MP gives you

Call it an extra feature. I think that feature - networked sources - is much more to the point than the tv-server concept. TV-sever is targeted at simultanious viewing at different places in the house: it just never happens. Networked devices give you the flexebility of viewing tv at different places from the same sources. None of that contadicts the concept of MP in having a lot of features. But you are not bound to have a database, you dont have to implement timeshifting on the server-side, you dont need your own set of plugins apart from MP. Although WOL is a nice one that could be integrated in the networked dvb concept.

@frodo: I would like your opnion on this and how you experience the network feature of altdvb - being just another source of content.

 

[Laban]

The main reason for this approach would be to make Mediaportal 'lean and mean' (again). TVserver as a virtual device would simplify matters a lot. Note the startup-time for MP Client; first MP is loaded and then the majority of it's components are replaced by tvserver plugins...
An example of the approach i would like can be seen in Alt-dvb.
Mediaportal should be much more component oriented and a virtual device for remote dvb-sources would be an excellent starting point.

This i agree with though. MediaPortal should be a thin client. As thin as possible at least. I'd like to see the TV-Server to become more of a MediaServer which also handles audio, pictures and so forth. All called by MP as webservices (soap). Then make everything a plugin (base plugins - additional plugins) so that the user can choose what he wants to load on each device that he installs the client.

 

[pastimer]

This i agree with though. MediaPortal should be a thin client. As thin as possible at least. I'd like to see the TV-Server to become more of a MediaServer which also handles audio, pictures and so forth. All called by MP as webservices (soap). Then make everything a plugin (base plugins - additional plugins) so that the user can choose what he wants to load on each device that he installs the client.

Why would you want to concentrate all services in a server and then enable individual services in a client? The way i see it there are services distributed in the netwerk (lan share, internet media, dvb-services) and clients that can use them when needed and available. MP consist of user-interface (remote, skin), connectivity interfaces and the ability to handle (play, record, timseshift, schedule) a wide variety of content based on direct-show filters, all implemented by plugins.
As an example: With the current implemenation, scheduling and the collection of program info is restricted to Tvserver. So we are not able to schedule web-radio if that becomes available at some time. Implementing all these services seperately in MP makes them independent. That makes it flexible.

Eppo

 

[Laban]

With the current implemenation, scheduling and the collection of program info is restricted to Tvserver. So we are not able to schedule web-radio if that becomes available at some time. Implementing all these services seperately in MP makes them independent. That makes it flexible.

Well, it's just as easy to add scheduling of web-radio on the tv-server as it is on a client. Don't really see the problem there.

And what exactly do you think you'll gain by making the services independent ?
You mention added flexibility but i'd prefer an example.

Then you have the problems like Roberdin mentioned. F.e:

1. Client A set's a recording , channel a, today 19:00 -> 20:00
2: Client B also set's a recording 5 minutes later, channel a, today, 18:00 -> 21:00
3: channel a is only available on card 1.

Client B will of course hog up the TV-Card first and will record the show. Client A will be out of luck, despite the fact that he was first..