Hi
Am Freitag, 12. November 2010 schrieb Christian Tramnitz:
Right now when the needs of a vdr extension goes beyond core SVDRP capabilities a different approach is being used by the each extensions. Prominent examples are:
- vdradmin (using native SVDRP and suffering from its performance,
optional use of direct file access to epg data)
- live-plugin (integrating into vdr as plugin)
- vdr iphone remote (using native SVDRP and due the bad performance and
encryption capabilities an optional web-based interface) (and I'm sure there are more)
[...]
Now I would like to start a few discussions related to this topic, the ones that come to my mind mind first are:
- Should this be implemented as plugin or in core vdr as svdrp extension?
- Would Klaus accept patches if this will be native SVDRP?
- Are developers/maintainers of current or feature plugins/extensions
interested in such a solution?
- What technical implementation would make most sense?
- Who would be willing to contribute to such a project?
The live-plugin has support (contributed by third party developer) for SSL connections to its internal web-server. See the README file in LIVE for more details.
The concept how LIVE works as plugin could be generalized to provide a 'generic' (SVDRP like) access via xml-http(s)-requests or via JSON etc.
The general disadvantage of such an approach is, that it creates an 'officially unsupported' way to control VDR remotely. I mean it does not get 'standardized' by Klaus :)
Regards Tadi