for passive viewing - why not just have a venue which starts up a broadcasting application instead of rat?
active participants could use a venue with usual tools. ____________________________________________ At 04:54 PM 10/24/2004, Frank Sweetser wrote: >On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 08:20:36PM -0500, Ivan R. Judson wrote: > > > > > > Seems like just using some authorization facility would be easier. Just > > don't allow those participants to "write" to the venue. > > > > The authorization stuff that's in 2.X is admittedly incomplete and the SOAP > > latency makes it hard to use, but it's proven itself when it comes to the > > design and structure. In 3.X we'll have to make sure it's fast enough to be > > usable because with it you could do what I'm describing, which is what you > > really want. you don't really want to bridge venues this way, it's plumbing > > at the wrong level of the system, IMHO. > >In principle I agree with you. However, the problem I see is handling the >media streams. If a person is allowed into a given venue, there's >currently no >way to forcibly make their rat (for example) recieve only, and completely >disable the talk option. Since the actual media data doesn't go through the >venue server, there's really currently no way to enforce read only vs read >write with respect to video or audio. > >-- >Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu >WPI Network Engineer >GPG fingerprint = 6174 1257 129E 0D21 D8D4 E8A3 8E39 29E3 E2E8 8CEC ___________________________________________________________ Tom Coffin .......................... tcof...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
