PDA

View Full Version : Replacement of current web interface ?



erland
2007-05-01, 20:40
Does the Jive software mean that the current web interface will be abandoned and replaced with a Jive based interface ?
The Nokia770/Touch skins seems very similar to this when looking at the screenshots.

I'm asking since I like to know if I should focus on learning Jive/Lua instead of implementing stuff for the current web interface in my plugins.

Balthazar_B
2007-05-02, 10:23
I'm not associated in any way with Slim/Logitech (except as a consumer), but having read the Jive wiki entry and seen the sample graphics, I would say the writing is *clearly* on the wall...

dean
2007-05-02, 11:01
On May 1, 2007, at 8:40 PM, erland wrote:
>Does the Jive software mean that the current web interface will be
>abandoned and replaced with a Jive based interface ?
Absolutely not. Both are going to be useful and interesting, long term.

>The Nokia770/Touch skins seems very similar to this when >looking at the screenshots.
They do share some visual characteristics, but the goals are different.

The web interface is primarily for devices that have reasonably
powerful web browsers at their disposal, like desktop computers and
web tablets.

Jive is designed to run on lower-performance devices while offering a
platform for running code locally on the device.

While we aren't talking about future hardware products, you can
imagine a wide variety of hardware devices that could use the Jive
software.

Imagine away!

-dean

erland
2007-05-02, 11:21
The web interface is primarily for devices that have reasonably powerful web browsers at their disposal, like desktop computers and web tablets.

Jive is designed to run on lower-performance devices while offering a platform for running code locally on the device.
So if I interpret this correctly the Jive software will not be suitable for large displays like a computer screen.
Jive will be very suitable for remote controls with a small display.
I'm guessing that devices in the Nokia770 category will be somewhere in-between where Jive or the standard web interface could be used.

Is there a reason why Jive can't replace the web interface, at least the part of the web interface you use for browsing, searching and playing music ?
On approximately which display size do you think Jive will be less useful than the standard web interface ?

I personally think that you don't need a 1024x768 size screen when selecting which track to play. For configuration the web interface on a large display is usable, but for searching/browsing music a smaller display would be enough for me.

Does all this mean that plugin authors need to support three different user interfaces, player interface, web interface and Jive interface ?

peterw
2007-05-02, 11:45
On May 1, 2007, at 8:40 PM, erland wrote:
>Does the Jive software mean that the current web interface will be
>abandoned and replaced with a Jive based interface ?
Absolutely not. Both are going to be useful and interesting, long term.

...

The web interface is primarily for devices that have reasonably
powerful web browsers at their disposal, like desktop computers and
web tablets.

Jive is designed to run on lower-performance devices while offering a
platform for running code locally on the device.


This reminds me a bit of the Forth Interpreter ticket:
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3279
The important thing being the potential for higher level and/or 3rd party code running on the player device.

Does this mean "server (Perl) plugins" vs. "player (Lua/Jive) plugins"? (vs. "remote control (Lua/Jive) plugins???) Does it mean opening up the higher level firmware code (using proprietary code for SlimDSP, networking, etc. but having Lua client code control the player)?

Or is this yet another non-player UI option, so that I might be able to run Jive on Plua on my wifi-enabled Palm as an alternative to the Handheld web UI skin?

Thanks,

Peter

rtitmuss
2007-05-02, 12:07
Does all this mean that plugin authors need to support three different user interfaces, player interface, web interface and Jive interface ?

It will be possible to extend Jive using Slimserver plugins. Fred is working on exactly how.

You can also write applets in lua that run directly in the Jive application. These don't have to be releated to playing music at all, as an example I've included a Flickr plugin with the source code.

JimC
2007-05-02, 12:35
So if I interpret this correctly the Jive software will not be suitable for large displays like a computer screen.

Actually, Dean was contrasting the two interfaces: the web interface, which requires a full-featured web browser; and the Jive platform, which is designed to run on lower powered systems and run local apps. Said another way, the Jive browser is a lightweight version of a traditional browser, making it better for smaller (in terms of CPU, display, memory, etc.) footprint devices.

The Jive software platform will happily run on a platform with more horsepower and could theoretically be used to replace much of the web interface for selecting music, but that's not its intended use.

erland
2007-05-02, 12:56
It will be possible to extend Jive using Slimserver plugins. Fred is working on exactly how.

You can also write applets in lua that run directly in the Jive application. These don't have to be releated to playing music at all, as an example I've included a Flickr plugin with the source code.
What I'm getting at is that today I have to implement two interfaces (web + player) in a plugin and this is a bit of work. If I also had to implement a third interface (jive) that would make the situation even worse. If the browse/search/play part of the web interface could be completely replaced with Jive, that would make the situation a bit better, I could then:
- For browse/search/play operations: Player + Jive interface implemented in plugin
- For configuration operations: Web interface implemented in plugin.

I should also mention that I haven't tried Jive yet, so it might not be good enough for browse/search/play operations on a big display to replace the web interface.

I know I might sound a bit negative, but thats not really the case. This Jive stuff looks really promising and the screenshots looks great. I'm just trying to find a way which would result in less work for me as a plugin developer instead of more work. New technology is always interesting, so that part of Jive shouldn't be problem.

dean
2007-05-02, 14:03
On May 2, 2007, at 11:45 AM, peterw wrote:
> This reminds me a bit of the Forth Interpreter ticket:
> http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3279
Heh, I just closed that bug. No more memory left on SB.

> The important thing being the potential for higher level and/or 3rd
> party code running on the player device.
Exactly!

> Does this mean "server (Perl) plugins" vs. "player (Lua/Jive)
> plugins"?
> (vs. "remote control (Lua/Jive) plugins???)
Well, we're not talking about hardware, but yes, there are Perl
plugins that run in SlimServer and now Lua "applets" that will run on
Jive-based clients.

> Does it mean opening up the
> higher level firmware code (using proprietary code for SlimDSP,
> networking, etc. but having Lua client code control the player)?
That depends on the device. At this point the Jive software
framework is open, but not completely free. (See the thread about
the new license.)

> Or is this yet another non-player UI option, so that I might be
> able to
> run Jive on Plua on my wifi-enabled Palm as an alternative to the
> Handheld web UI skin?
The Jive architecture includes a C-based runtime and a bunch of Lua
code on top of it. They need each other, so I'm not sure that Plua
will be much help.

-dean

peterw
2007-05-02, 16:06
Thanks, Dean, that's very helpful.

I'm a little concerned about players getting too smart/fat (if you're looking at running Jive on the Squeezebox itself and possibly having Jive alter the current IR/server/control model). IR Blaster, AMP Switch, VolumeLock, StatusFirst -- a fatter/smarter client could lead to some "distributed control" problems for developing.

And I'm concerned about the LPSL license terms; see the license thread for my detailed comments. Essentially, I don't think the LPSL 1.0 is open enough to be the basis for any significant 3rd party development, and I hope the license and system design will enable "clean room" LGPL applets if Logitech won't allow an OSI-compatble license for the main Jive source.

-Peter

dean
2007-05-02, 17:35
On May 2, 2007, at 4:06 PM, peterw wrote:
> Thanks, Dean, that's very helpful.
No prob.

> I'm a little concerned about players getting too smart/fat (if you're
> looking at running Jive on the Squeezebox itself and possibly having
> Jive alter the current IR/server/control model). IR Blaster, AMP
> Switch, VolumeLock, StatusFirst -- a fatter/smarter client could lead
> to some "distributed control" problems for developing.
Definitely a risk, having two CPUs running two bits of code, but
there's some power here too, to do stuff on the client that folks
have wanted to do, but couldn't with Squeezebox.

amcluesent
2007-05-03, 12:25
I guess feature matching is being demanded by the Logitech 'suits' so that the box looks good on the shelves with planned obsolescence to keep the $$ coming in from upgrades. What a sell out for the genuine music lovers.

mvalera
2007-05-03, 12:44
The only suits at Logitech are worn by people coming in for interviews and vendors... and they look out of place when they do it too. :)

To quote Sean... "However, Jive was designed from the ground up for this license strategy - long before the Logitech merger, in fact."

mherger
2007-05-03, 15:08
> The only suits at Logitech are worn by people coming in for interviews

But not all of them do ;-)

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD
http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR

mvalera
2007-05-03, 15:22
Ya...

Interviewee in suit and/or tie = tool = not getting hired.

peterw
2007-05-04, 09:16
Interviewee in suit and/or tie = tool = not getting hired.

Ouch. That must be a west coast thing. Out here in the DC area, it's still customary to suit up for job interviews, even for tech positions. I'm afraid the famously laid back California dot-com office environment improved our everyday dress codes but not our expectations for interview attire. Maybe it's all the lobbyists who still have to dress like 1950s businessmen...

gorman
2007-05-16, 06:52
What a sell out for the genuine music lovers.I was just reading, as this is clearly labeled as a Developer Forum but... this... talk about crying wolf prematurely! What do you know about this "sell out"? They just announced a software platform for future developments.

A lot of people was demanding for more advanced remotes. Browsing huge collections just on the VFD is not the handiest of tasks, you know?

dean
2007-05-16, 06:57
There is no "planned obsolescence," we do plan on continuing support
for our older products.

But we're also developing new ones too and the goal is that they all
work together for the foreseeable future.

gorman
2007-05-18, 10:30
There is no "planned obsolescence," we do plan on continuing support
for our older products.

But we're also developing new ones too and the goal is that they all
work together for the foreseeable future.And anybody still using the original Squeezebox or the even earlier SLIMP3 could testify that this is the plain unadulterated truth.
Hats off to your support.
(Now... if 6.5 hadn't being full of problems I would have liked it better, though ;)).