Netherlands
But isn't implementing yet another webservice doing the same work over and over again? As far as I could see in forum posts many products are based on the webservice from gemx. If everybody keeps creating his/her own stuff, it will all take us a lot of time and we all have to go through the same pitfalls over and over again. I took the assemblies from Media Portal themselves and pulled them through Reflector to see what they're like and what they have to offer. They're well built and as far as I can see all functionality is already in it. The only thing that is to do is to create a SOAP and/or REST wrapper around it with no functionality of itself, just a passthrough to the assemblies. The current webservice is polluted with all kind of sample plugins and webservice apps. Don't! Create a clean standalone webservice which communicates with Media Portal. Create different projects for stuff to communicate with the webservice (webapp, mobile app, Media Center app, etc). Keep things separated, lightweight and clean.
What's happening with hometvserver and MCE-client for TV-server? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter zicoz
- Start date
AW: What's happening with hometvserver and MCE-client for TV-server?
hi
i know it is not the best way with webservice but i have it nativ teste without webservice
but then we need an custom TvServer Version with signed Assemblys (Strong Name Key )
i have ask the mp dev (s) but it is to complicated to change it
my sigend tvserver version can you load from here
Download MediaCenter Client for TV Server from SourceForge.net
but with this special version of tvserver had no tv server plugin function
and can not use as backend for mediaportal
is only for testing Tv server with Windows Media Center
hi
i know it is not the best way with webservice but i have it nativ teste without webservice
but then we need an custom TvServer Version with signed Assemblys (Strong Name Key )
i have ask the mp dev (s) but it is to complicated to change it
my sigend tvserver version can you load from here
Download MediaCenter Client for TV Server from SourceForge.net
but with this special version of tvserver had no tv server plugin function
and can not use as backend for mediaportal
is only for testing Tv server with Windows Media Center
Why do you think so?
What's the difference between the not started project on consolidating the webservice and just start another try?
From my current point of view this new webservice is able to become THE webservice for Media Portal and with the usage of WCF nearly all kind of programming languages is able to access it.
Imo the most important thing is to consolidate the manpower...
Mike, can you outline your ideas/concepts for your webservice implementation and what has already been done?
Yes of course your right
Well the main concept behind the webservice is to have all features the TVBusinesslayer offers in a webservice.
The service itself is really simple and lightweight. And it have two different sercurity access levels based on the WCF security layer.
One is for intranet use and one with code authentication(like the Win 7 Homegroups) is for internet usage.
I hope we'll see a alpha release in the next week.
And as far as i see it's nearly feature complete
Well the main concept behind the webservice is to have all features the TVBusinesslayer offers in a webservice.
The service itself is really simple and lightweight. And it have two different sercurity access levels based on the WCF security layer.
One is for intranet use and one with code authentication(like the Win 7 Homegroups) is for internet usage.
I hope we'll see a alpha release in the next week.
And as far as i see it's nearly feature complete
Well the service is served by the WCF ServiceHost Class
And no currently the sourcecode is not available. But as i said before, we try to have a working release next week and then of course the source will also be available.
And no currently the sourcecode is not available. But as i said before, we try to have a working release next week and then of course the source will also be available.
Yes that's right.
First we don't need the client side functions for our projects and second it's better to split these tasks in different services.
First we don't need the client side functions for our projects and second it's better to split these tasks in different services.
Sounds good Mike! I've had a chat with DieBagger yesterday and we agreed on the need for a new lightweight WCF service. That takes away the need for Cassini stuff or difficult IIS installation guides. I take you're using the HTTP based endpoint for WCF and not a TCP based one? Not the most optimized for speed, but best for inter compatibility for sure. The hosting application is a Windows Service, correct?
What we need to try to avoid is that everyone over and over again starts a lot of work with the same idea: "this is going to be THE MP webservice". Can't imagine someone starting his/her work with the idea "this is going to be crap!" That's why I suggested one to be included with the next official release of MP. But DieBagger pointed out to me there's a lot to it to "just" add such a thing to the official project. Based from what I read here about your WCF implementation Mike, it sounds very promising and it may well be THE mp webservice implementation everybody can use
If you need someone to exchange thoughts with or have a critical review of the code, I'll be willing to be the one for that Otherwise I will patiently await your first release.
What we need to try to avoid is that everyone over and over again starts a lot of work with the same idea: "this is going to be THE MP webservice". Can't imagine someone starting his/her work with the idea "this is going to be crap!"
That's why I suggested one to be included with the next official release of MP. But DieBagger pointed out to me there's a lot to it to "just" add such a thing to the official project. Based from what I read here about your WCF implementation Mike, it sounds very promising and it may well be THE mp webservice implementation everybody can use If you need someone to exchange thoughts with or have a critical review of the code, I'll be willing to be the one for that
Otherwise I will patiently await your first release.