Re: [Muine] [PATCH] InfoServer

[Brian Kerrick Nickel <kerrick cox net>]

On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 20:49 -0500, Michael Baehr wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 at 14:50:23 -0700, Brian Kerrick Nickel wrote:
> 
> > I have a similar server I've been working on. It uses xml queries and
> > doesn't use a keep-alive connection with the client, so it doesn't
> > broadcast things like changes to the playlist. It does however allow for
> > querying Muine.DB and queuing/playing songs. It's usability is
> > demonstrated here: http://localhost:8080/music/
> > 
> > I think muine could stand to use a combination of the two, a keep-alive
> > notification server, and a request server, preferably packaged on the
> > same port. Ideally this would be able to replace MessageConnection.
> >
> > It may be better to use Unix sockets in place of Tcp, either that or an
> > IP whitelist/blacklist.
> >
> > - Brian Kerrick Nickel
> >
> > On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 12:36 -0400, Sam Stephenson wrote:
> >> Attached patch listens for TCP connections on a user-specified port
> >> and sends a simple XML document containing player state information.
> >> The port number can be changed at runtime via gconf, and you can
> >> enable and disable the server with gconf, too.
> >> 
> >> I think this is a simple and useful way to get information about Muine
> >> from other applications, at least until DBUS support is added.
> >> 
> >> Here is some sample output, retrieved using netcat:
> >> 
> >> $ nc localhost 6588
> >> <player state="paused"><song><filename>/home/sam/Music/Mark Farina -
> >> San Francisco Sessions vol. 1/02 Rob Mello -
> >> Happiness.mp3</filename><title>Happiness</title><artist>Rob
> >> Mello</artist><album>San Francisco Sessions - Volume
> >> 1</album><duration>3:46</duration></song><position>0:03</position></player>
> >> 
> >> I haven't used C# or .NET before, so I must apologize if my code seems
> >> messy.  Hopefully someone will find this useful.
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Sam Stephenson
> >> sstephenson gmail com
> 
> Brian please do not top-post in the future, it makes reading message
> threads very difficult and indicates a generally poor understanding of
> netiquette :)
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mike

My apologies. With the threading technologies provided by email clients
these days, I've found the opposite to be true. As I'm merely citing
another post, and not commenting on an individual part, the previous
text seems to fit best at the bottom, as it alleviates the need for
unnecessary scrolling. It took a lot of scrolling to get to the meet of
your entry for instance. But I guess I'm just one man of millions and if
I am committing a social faux pas, I shall cease and desist.

- Brian Nickel