On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:56:43PM +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:06:53AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:04:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:54:07AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > > > i'm sure we could have a long and protracted flamewar over this, so i'm
> > > > going to try and skip that by saying that if someone gives me a really
> > > > good reason to implent RTSP, i'll do it, but the reason has to be
> > > > something other thawn "rtsp is what you use for streaming"
> > >
> > > I don't care whether or not we use RTSP, I only started talking about it
> > > when Matthew mentioned it. Provided that whatever protocol we use is
> > > brain-dead simple and generally supported, I don't mind at all. What
> > > protocol did you use in your python code?
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did ^_^. Anyhow, the code i have
> > right
> > now uses http for streaming locally (implemented using python's
> > BaseHTTPServer class). The nice thing about http, is everyone agrees
> > on it.
> Well, if it's _that_ simple, maybe we should put it into fproxy.
this is what I was planning to do, basically... have a /stream/SSK at whatever
thing that can dael with live streaming etc whatever. if that doens't
make sense, blame it on my being almost completly asleep :-;
- fish
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021221/b947823f/attachment.pgp>
