PDA

View Full Version : Using Plug-Ins with Squeezenetwork



chale
2006-05-07, 07:41
I have the new sb3 and love it. I have downloaded a few plugsins, such as an advanced alarm, weather, etc for use but it is only selectable through when I am hooked into my slimnetwork and NOT on the squeeze network. I mainly use the squeezenetwork but would like to use plugins. Is this doable?

BTW - I had no knowledge of the roku issues with open source until just prior to my purchase and that is what made my decision to go with the sb3


Thanks

Mark Lanctot
2006-05-07, 07:49
Unfortunately SqueezeNetwork is totally different than SlimServer. Plugins for SlimServer won't work on SqueezeNetwork because SlimServer isn't being used when you're on SqueezeNetwork. You can turn your SlimServer off when you're on SqueezeNetwork, in fact.

SqueezeNetwork is essentially a SlimServer operated over the Internet - you're operating off an entirely different server.

chale
2006-05-07, 10:01
Could adding plugins to the squeeze network be a future added feature? I know the slimserver can be turned off when squeeze network is running, but why couldn't one theoretically uploaded the plug in to the squeeze network prefs page and then have it download to the slimbox. I am not sure why the slimbox couldn't retain the script to run it without the slimserver....

Just wondering...

mherger
2006-05-07, 13:10
> I know the slimserver can be turned off when squeeze network is
> running, but why couldn't one theoretically uploaded the plug in to the
> squeeze network prefs page and then have it download to the slimbox.

Because there are hundreds or thousands of other SBs served from the same
server. If you install a plugin which causes the server to crash, all
those other users won't be very happy. It's a shared service. It must be
stable.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

Mark Lanctot
2006-05-07, 18:35
Could adding plugins to the squeeze network be a future added feature? I know the slimserver can be turned off when squeeze network is running, but why couldn't one theoretically uploaded the plug in to the squeeze network prefs page and then have it download to the slimbox. I am not sure why the slimbox couldn't retain the script to run it without the slimserver....

Just wondering...

Just adding to what Michael said, keep in mind that the player is slim, as the name of the company implies. Almost all the functionality is on the server, and in the case of SqueezeNetwork, it's a big Linux server running a modified version of SlimServer.

You'd have to store the plugin there and it would have to be just for you.

Multiply that by 500 000 users and you get the idea the kind of logistical nightmare this would present.

tamanaco
2006-05-09, 09:26
Just adding to what Michael said, keep in mind that the player is slim, as the name of the company implies. Almost all the functionality is on the server, and in the case of SqueezeNetwork, it's a big Linux server...

Ok, I understand the reasons for the "Slim" player, but why can't Slim Devices implement an "option" in the firmware of the SB to switch automatically to the SqueezeNetwork when the SlimServer is not available? I'm tired of seing a black screen and having to go to the SqueezeBox remote turn the box on and switch to the SqueezeNetwork manually. This happens every time the the PC that runs SlimServer is turned off. I know there will be some folks that won't like this idea... but Slim Devices should provide two "options": Manual and Auto. I know, I know... you probably read this in a recent post I placed. Sorry about that.

aubuti
2006-05-09, 09:47
Ok, I understand the reasons for the "Slim" player, but why can't Slim Devices implement an "option" in the firmware of the SB to switch automatically to the SqueezeNetwork when the SlimServer is not available?
Now _that_ seems much more feasible to implement than user-specified SqueezeNetwork plugins. And from some comments in other threads, making the switch between SS and SN a lot more seamless than it is at present is one of the things on SD's development agenda.

Mark Lanctot
2006-05-09, 10:09
Yes, I agree - that's not only feasible, Slim are apparently quite interested in doing this.

BTW I played devil's advocate for a second and thought of my statement that storing plugins on a server was unfeasible. Not true - Yahoo and GMail store far, far more data. (Of course their companies are much, much bigger.) But the key difference is, those e-mails aren't executable programs run server-side.

dgpretzel
2006-05-21, 18:29
OK, how about Squeeze network as it is for the standard product.

Then, an optional, individually customizable squeeze network as a premium (as in pay extra for [like monthly subscription]). This might be a way to accomodate the original request.

Essentially suggesting that squeeze network offer slim server hosting services as a commercial web delivered service-- a revenue generator. (Gotta pay for the increased infrastructure to provide all those virtual servers).

Just a thought from a SB newb. Don't even know if it really makes sense.

DG

funkstar
2006-05-22, 00:32
Interesting idea.

There was a discussion about SqueezeNetwork a while ago that sugested that SD were looking at options to create revenue from SN. We now have Pandora (for US residents only due to licensing issues i believe) which i have a feeling may be just a part of it.

dgpretzel
2006-05-22, 12:10
Gee, I wonder if Squeezenetwork could actually transform Slim Devices' business model. Really develop SN as an extreme, user-personalizable, audio delivery platform. In other words, the goal would be to create a big value-add over the free SN, which would then serve as a "taste" of the paid service. Sort of free if you "have it our Slim's way"; and a paid option if you "have it your (individual customer's) way".

Sort of like blades and razors. "Give" (i.e., very low price) away the Squeezeboxen (hardware, single revenue event), and charge for a highly personalizable, customizable SN (software, and a continuing revenue stream). I suppose it depends on how much of a value-add customers would perceive with a very enhanced SN.

Just a thought.

DG

peterw
2006-05-24, 10:02
How about a proxy model?

As I understand it (and I haven't gone so far as to capture packets on the wire), SqueezeNetwork (SN) is essentially a case of the SB player connecting to a SlimServer (SS) host that's run by Slim Devices on the public Internet. Once "on" SqueezeNetwork, a player sends all IR events to the SN server, which controls it. This is why the SS does not include in its list of current players any local SB that's connected to SN.

I'd like to see SS implement an (optional? configurable?) proxy model. SB players would access SN *through* their normal SS hosts (if the normal SS host is available). The SS host would receive IR events from the SB, pass them to SN, and pass the SN output back to the SB.

This would allow for a few benefits:
- IR "filter" plugins
Plugins on the local SS host could intercept IR codes to take action and possibly modify, remove, or add IR codes before they're sent to SN.
- local SS oversight
The local SS process would retain direct control over the SB. If a home automation system wanted to start playing a certain playlist on a given player, it could end the player's SN session and resume "normal" SS/SB behavior. If a customer wanted some volume or activity curfews, those could be applied to SN activity as well.

Ideally the SS/SN connection would have some fuctionality like the CLI "listen" command, and ideally the SS host would make those events visible through its CLI. Perhaps there would need to be a namespace/prefix convention for that information, e.g. prepend "SqueezeNetwork::" to the info that SS passes along to its CLI clients about SN activity for a given player.

For my most recent plugin -- one that uses X10 to control the AC power to my receiver/amp in conjunction with SB power state changes -- it means my plugin could see when a SB connected to SN was powered off. Currently, my plugin only sees power state changes when the SB is not on SN, so my amp is only powered down when I turn off my SB if I'm *not* using SN.

I imagine there might be some concern about DRM with a proxy model, especially if the music "data" flowed through the SS proxy software. Proxy mode would likely facilitate copying data streams sent by SN to SB players. I don't know if that's much of a concern though, considering that the Slim protocol is documented and anyone who's got an SB can already read the packets as they cross their home networks. So I hope those fears would not dissuade Slim Devices from including a SS/SN proxy option.

-Peter

grimholtz
2006-05-26, 15:02
How about open-sourcing SqueezeNetwork so I can run it myself (with plug-ins, if I want). This implies a firmware change so I can specify the IP/domain name of the SqueezeNetwork to which I want to connect, right?

andyg
2006-05-26, 16:52
On May 26, 2006, at 6:02 PM, grimholtz wrote:

>
> How about open-sourcing SqueezeNetwork so I can run it myself (with
> plug-ins, if I want). This implies a firmware change so I can specify
> the IP/domain name of the SqueezeNetwork to which I want to connect,
> right?

You can connect to any SlimServer by manually entering the IP in the
firmware settings menu (hold down the left arrow key).

funkstar
2006-05-27, 01:56
How about open-sourcing SqueezeNetwork so I can run it myself (with plug-ins, if I want). This implies a firmware change so I can specify the IP/domain name of the SqueezeNetwork to which I want to connect, right?
wouldn't that be exactly the same as just running regular slimserver?

grimholtz
2006-05-29, 14:27
wouldn't that be exactly the same as just running regular slimserver?Not exactly. The slimserver you and I are running right now is single-user. Squeezenetwork supports multiple users. I can't host "my own squeezenetwork" with my own hosting company for me and my friends right now with slimserver.

Mark Lanctot
2006-05-29, 14:42
Not exactly. The slimserver you and I are running right now is single-user. Squeezenetwork supports multiple users. I can't host "my own squeezenetwork" with my own hosting company for me and my friends right now with slimserver.

Actually - you could!

SlimServer is accessible over the Internet and does allow for multiple, independent streams, bandwidth allowing, of course.

You just enter in the IP address of the SlimServer.

Take a look:

http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=Welcome+to+SlimServer&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=title&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

If you resolve any of those sites to IP addresses and they let you in, you could play their music.

grimholtz
2006-05-29, 14:49
If you resolve any of those sites to IP addresses and they let you in, you could play their music.This is not multi-user, is it? When I change the stream, the music changes for everyone who's listening, right? If so, that's single-user to me. On Squeezenetwork, when I change MY stream, I don't affect ANYONE ELSE'S stream.

Mark Lanctot
2006-05-29, 14:52
This is not multi-user, is it? When I change the stream, the music changes for everyone who's listening, right? If so, that's single-user to me. On Squeezenetwork, when I change MY stream, I don't affect ANYONE ELSE'S stream.

Each player, when it connects, is identified separately and can play a separate stream independent of all others.

Try it out on your own SlimServer - point your playback software (foobar, Winamp, Windows Media Player) to http://localhost:9000/stream.mp3

You should see a new player pop up in SlimServer that you can control independently.

grimholtz
2006-05-29, 16:28
OK, but can't I also control other peoples' players?

Amauta
2006-05-30, 04:55
Yes, if you want you can controll all players.

grimholtz
2006-05-30, 04:59
Right. So what we need is the SqueezeNetwork website code open-sourced. To me, this is the difference between a mainframe/workstation-style multi-user environment and the PC-style single-user environment.

mherger
2006-05-30, 06:36
> Right. So what we need is the SqueezeNetwork website code open-sourced.
> To me, this is the difference between a mainframe/workstation-style
> multi-user environment and the PC-style single-user environment.

In the end this is a feature request which has come up before: serve
different players with different collections and access rights to the
playlist management tools. Feel free to add some code ;-)

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
SlimString Translation Helper (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

grimholtz
2006-05-30, 11:25
Feel free to add some codeOK, but why? SlimDevices has already done this with SqueezeNetwork. Do they not want to provide the source for SqueezeNetwork because it is a potential revenue source for them?

funkstar
2006-05-30, 13:38
probably :)

I can't say i blame them to be honest. SqueezeNetwork has massive potential. I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a major source or revenue for the company over the next few years. There was a comment in another thread about having SqueezeNetwork access files on one of the storage vault services out there, this could do away with the need to have your own server completely for a lot of people.