PDA

View Full Version : Squeezebox plugin for Foobar2000?



Simon Turner
2005-01-20, 09:22
I've been messing about with the Windows based Foobar2000 a bit recently and
have become even more impressed with it than I was before. It's open
architecture allows users to write plugins which other users then write
configuration strings for. I have now developed my Foobar2000 into the most
perfect music player ever :-). What I find stunning is how it can deal with
my very large music library without even blinking, retaining it's rock-solid
stability and responsiveness. This is completely unlike my experience of
every other Windows based music player (and library management) software I
have ever tried (and I must have tried at least the top ten most used ones),
which, when faced with a library the size of mine always become slow,
unresponsive, painful to use and just plain flaky. (I'm guessing that one of
the reason's for it's superior performance is because it's database of files
and tags is not updated automatically.. but I imagine there must be much
more to it's incredible performance that just this.)

Obvious question... has anyone ever heard of any rumours of a Squeezebox
plugin being developed for Foobar2000? Can anyone think of any reasons one
should not/could not be developed?

I've just placed a post on the Foobar forums to see if anyone else has been
having similar ideas, but judging by a post from last November, when someone
asked the same thing, interest is not high.

If I could run my Squeezebox via Foobar2000 on Windows I'd be very happy
indeed.

Simon Turner
Brighton UK
Telephone GB: 07973 628683
International: +44 7973 628683

tim912
2006-03-06, 07:50
Is anyone still interested in this?

I'm planning on implementing a Squeezebox plugin for Foobar 0.9 but am unsure whether to produce a plugin which simply tells the slimserver what to do through the CLI (similar to Moose) or whether to integrate it completely so it streams directly to the Squeezebox (a much much bigger task involving implementing a large portion of SlimServer in C++).

Anybody got any ideas either way?

verdemar
2006-03-06, 08:22
I would be very interested in this. I have been thinking about this myself, but I don't think I can contribute with actual coding. I would be more than willing to do some testing, though.

I suppose I would prefer a native version (not having to install slimserver) but a CLI version would probably be ready much sooner.

May I suggest a first version based on the CLI, and possibly make a more sophisticated version after that has shown it's usefulness?

blah509
2006-03-06, 10:04
bump bump bump

bossanova808
2006-03-06, 15:08
Definitely interested, in either version.

NWP
2006-03-06, 15:28
I've been holding off on trying foobar because of its complexity and I am happy with winamp, but if there was a slimserver plugin I would probably switch immediately.

Mark Lanctot
2006-03-06, 16:21
Jeez, that would be like peanut butter and jelly. ;-)

Since they're both open-source, the possibilities for cross-functionality are endless.

JJZolx
2006-03-06, 18:08
Is anyone still interested in this?

I'm planning on implementing a Squeezebox plugin for Foobar 0.9 but am unsure whether to produce a plugin which simply tells the slimserver what to do through the CLI (similar to Moose) or whether to integrate it completely so it streams directly to the Squeezebox (a much much bigger task involving implementing a large portion of SlimServer in C++).

Anybody got any ideas either way?
Ideally? The latter. Then a user doesn't have to run SlimServer at all.

It's no doubt many times the work of using the CLI, though, and you'll have to deal with slimproto changes as they happen in the future. However, there's also a significant portion of SlimServer that you _don't_ have to duplicate or emulate. No web server, no skins, no track scanning. You can pick and choose, or ignore altogether, any of the plugin stuff. Also, which of player options to implement.

You could choose whether to even implement the remote interface. I'd guess for those wishing to use foobar there would be little, if any need for it. Same with the display. We lived for years without song title displays on tape decks, tuners, turntables and CD players, so you might consider it a low priority. It'd be interesting to see if/how existing foobar plugins could be used to drive the Squeezebox - things like transcoding non-native codecs, in particular. There may be enough that's usable so that all you have to do is work out the slimproto exchanges.