kdf Wrote: > >> I don't quite follow this. I thought he was just asking why the > >> network setup wasn't in the settings section of the remote > interface, > >> not for control from the web interface. > > well, there is that, but my answer was earlier in the thread. JJ is > probably quite capable of figuring it out for himself, but I'll indulge > > the question anyway. Having the firmware respond means that the > hardware must be present, and being used at the time in the way it was > > designed. Having a command embedded in the server, when the design > puts all commands into a common gateway means that this command is then > > available via the web, CLI, RPC, etc. > > Any button or ir command can be sent via the server. Add the fact that > its > open source, and anyone could edit the server to trigger such functions > at > any time. Ok, I see what you mean now. I wasn't at all aware that in order to implement a command in the remote interface means that it's accessible from the server.
How about this, then? Keep access to the network setup the same as it is now, but give the ability to define multiple servers, giving each a name. Then present those server connection options in the settings section. You'd be able to have the server control the Squeezebox connection, but only to the extent of being able to connect to these pre-defined servers. -- JJZolx Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18262 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
