hi, Torsten:
> We cannot tell how the ActionScript code will be like for all video
> host sites, right ?
Right. It there was a limited number of standard "video player" SWF
files, you might have a way to predict this, but there aren't.
Basically everyone is writing his / her own. Of course, algorithms for
popular sites may get detected and published on the web, but this is
not a generic solution and by the way has little to do with the goals
of the Gnash project, AFAIK.
If you come across a very straightforward implementation where the URL
to be played is one of the parameters passed to the player, you could
find your way, but this isn't what you really want.
Yes. I agree .
> Have you studied the reason ? I have encountered such a case last
> week, it just return "Unauthorized" though the URL looked okay (I
> extracted the URL from some website).
I can only guess it: The content owners don't want you to watch their
content using your own player which is not embedded into their website
because if you play the URL directly you will not see the advertising
that they try to make some money of. That would apply to any site
which plays the content without a login. Those sites create a session
key for you somewhere in the browser when you visit the site, then
pass this on to the ActionScript which will pass this on to the
request for the actual content. That way they make sure that the
request for the video comes from a player which is embedded in their
web page. (And not for example someone else's web page.)
No doubt. Without money ,they just cannot afford to run the site ..:)
At least they don't charge for extra fee, like some TV programs .
> Just a thought. I saw by using Adobe Flex3 SDK, we could create swf
> file , and Flex3 SDK is open sourced ( havn't finished downloading) ,
> is that helpful to implement the unimplemented parts ?
I am not sure, but I don't actually think so. IIUC, the SDK is open
sources, not the VM on which the result of what you built with the SDK
( the actual Flash movie) will run.
Compare this to having a FOSS SDK for Windows apps (MinGW). That does
not mean that Windows itself (on which software built with MinGW will
run) is open source.
Would MinGW help you if you tried to create a clean-room
implementation of the Win32 API? It would for sure provide some input
to your requirements, but it's not an implementation you can learn /
steal from.
Not quite into Windows though. IMHO, SDK helps you develop program
,not for reverse engineer ,though sometime may enlighten you with some
basic inputs.
Nevo
Nevo schrieb:
hi, Strk:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Torsten Schlabach wrote:
What I mean is the AVM2 branch. I have no idea yet how this might be
different from the "normal" development version (trunk) but what I
found
is: It has different (not less, but different) unimplemented
warnings in
my case.
The avm2 branch is likely a bit out-dated.
Should get a merge *from* trunk to be in sync.
The avm2 code should be pretty separated from the
old vm, so theoretically it could be merged *into*
trunk, except that the parsers for avm2-specific tags
(DoABC, DoABCDefine) are still bogus thus potentially
making gnash unstable.
Anyway, I suggest you merge trunk into the avm2
branch as one of the early stages if you plan
to work there.
Just a thought. I saw by using Adobe Flex3 SDK, we could create swf
file , and Flex3 SDK is open sourced ( havn't finished downloading) ,
is that helpful to implement the unimplemented parts ? Anyway, having
no good knowledge about that ,so just a curious wonder. :)
Nevo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gnash-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
_______________________________________________
Gnash-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
_______________________________________________
Gnash-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
