Re: online content through 'external' plugin

[Michael Lawrence <lawremi gmail com>]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Paul Coccoli <pcoccoli gmail com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeenix gmail com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I've already fixed a couple "bugs" in Rygel and the gupnp stack to make it
>> interoperate with my television (LG PK750). One "fix", for example, was for
>> gupnp to send a mime type of "text/xml" instead of "application/xml" in the
>> HTTP headers. Of course, "application/xml" would seem more appropriate, but
>> my TV did not like it.
>
>  Thats already fixed in the latest gupnp release. Please file bugs as
> soon as you identify issues, it'll save us both time/efforts in the
> long run. :)
>

Yea, I see that. This program is obviously too well maintained. But I have a fix that you don't have, so I don't feel that bad. My TV doesn't like '*' for the contentFeatures.dlna.org header, i.e., it should either contain a valid string (as specified by the spec), or it should not be present. This makes sense given my reading of the spec.

In case anyone is wondering how I figured this stuff out, I spent a weekend comparing the output of the miniDLNA server (which worked fine with my TV) and Rygel.

>> So there needs to be some sort of configuration file
>> to handle these compatibility issues.
>
>  Not really, no. We don't want to go that route and would like
> gupnp/rygel to work out of the box with as many devices out there as
> possible.

I have to say I disagree with this approach, given that DLNA seems to
be either poorly specified or implemented.  If a few key things like
content type could be externalized, why wouldn't you do that?  Seems
much nicer than saying, "OK it's fixed, grab the latest build."  Not
everyone enjoys building package, especially with the number of
dependencies involved these days.

I bring this up for selfish reasons: I have an LG Blu-Ray player that
doesn't work with Rygel.  If Michael's "fixes" could be applied by
editing a config file, I'd gladly try them out.  But building the
latest when Fedora is shipping 0.6.0?  Much less appealing.

You could still make it "work out of the box" by providing suitable
externalized configurations for as many devices as possible.

This is what I was going to suggest. I'm all for having things work out of the box, but it just seems like there would be too many special cases to hard-code.
 

>
>> I can volunteer to play around with the external plugin and building the
>> container hierarchy lazily. But it's a just-for-fun project, so nothing is
>> guaranteed :)
>
>  No problem, all good things start with just having fun.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
> FSF member#5124

> _______________________________________________
> rygel-list mailing list
> rygel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rygel-list
>