Hi On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Josh Allmann <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 6 June 2010 18:38, zhentan feng <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Martin Storsjö <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Zhentan, > >> > >> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, spyfeng wrote: > >> > >> > Author: spyfeng > >> > Date: Sun Jun 6 19:17:38 2010 > >> > New Revision: 5825 > >> > > >> > Log: > >> > add primary version for mmsh.c which can't pass the compile. > >> > TODO: > >> > 1, parse the asf header. > >> > 2, finish mmsh_read(). > >> > 3, compile and fix bugs. > >> > 4, extract common codes with mmst.c > >> > >> It seems you're using the tcp protocol directly here - would it be > >> possible to use the http protocol instead, with a few modifications? > That > >> would reduce the code duplication. As you've seen in other mails here, > >> Josh is adding some customizations to the http protocol, to allow > setting > >> custom headers. Is that enough in order for you to use it, or do you > need > >> some other modifications, too? > >> > >> > > yes. you are right. I intended to code based on http.c. > > but I am not sure how to modified it exactly, it may pollution http.c. > > so I decided to make a wheel from tcp(it's not complicated :p), and make > > mmsh as a separated file. > > once I make mmsh.c works, I have already knew exactly what I should > modify > > the code. > > then I will merge it use http.c. > > > > I took a quick look, nice work. It seems one of the things you need, > that http can't do currently, is the ability to custom-parse response > headers. RTSP-HTTP actually could use that too, for full spec > compliance. Other than that, it seems that http.c with my patches > should do most of what you need. > > Just curious -- does MMSH require HTTP/1.0? Are servers particularly > strict about this? I ask because 1.0 is "required" for RTSP-HTTP, but > lavf sends out 1.1 headers. Hasn't manifested itself as a problem, > though. > > no. the spec says that HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 are both should be ok. > > I see you set a custom User-Agent field - is that only to minimize the > >> differences, or is it strictly needed? If it is needed, this is a point > >> for allowing overriding existing headers with the custom headers in > Josh's > >> patchset. > >> > >> I am sorry I haven't read Josh's patch, I'll check it and learn > something > > from it. > > thanks a lot. > > > > If you have questions about my patches, I'd be happy to answer them. > > thanks. have your patch been accepted in trunk? or which thread in the mail list I should follow with it? and what about your nickname in IRC? my nick is "spyfeng" :) zhentan -- Best wishes~ _______________________________________________ FFmpeg-soc mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-soc
