Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: MythTV: Dev

Record now?

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All MythTV dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jim at bizofun

Jan 15, 2003, 7:52 AM

Post #1 of 42 (3532 views)
Permalink
Record now?

Is there anyway to do a record now? Like if I was watching the start of
a show and decided I wanted to record it, how would I do it.

jim


myth at highwayman

Jan 15, 2003, 8:39 AM

Post #2 of 42 (3509 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

Read keys.txt for more info. Start watching live TV, then press M to display
the grid. The current show is selected by default. Press R to record it, and
you can return to live TV with M if it's not automagic (I don't quite
remember). The conditional tests in MythTV allow a recording to begin even
after the start of the program.

Regards,
Jesse
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim" <jim[at]bizofun.com>
To: "'Development of mythtv'" <mythtv-dev[at]snowman.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 08:52
Subject: [mythtv] Record now?


> Is there anyway to do a record now? Like if I was watching the start of
> a show and decided I wanted to record it, how would I do it.
>
> jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev[at]snowman.net
> http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
>


wentz at gmx

Jan 15, 2003, 8:48 AM

Post #3 of 42 (3515 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

yes, this is an issue... if a show starts at 20:00 and i program it at 20:01
mythtv doesn't record... but i think it should, when there is no conflict and
(show_start_time <= now() and show_end_time > now())...

that reminds me of one of my questions that hasn't been answered yet, will
future versions of mythtv let the backend do all the sql-query-stuff? right
now the frontend does it, and i don't think this is a good idea, since the
backend should provide all the data that the frontend uses...

bye, stephan

Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2003 15:52 schrieb Jim:
> Is there anyway to do a record now? Like if I was watching the start of
> a show and decided I wanted to record it, how would I do it.
>
> jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev[at]snowman.net
> http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev


wentz at gmx

Jan 15, 2003, 8:53 AM

Post #4 of 42 (3483 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2003 16:39 schrieb Jesse Crews:
> Read keys.txt for more info. Start watching live TV, then press M to
> display the grid. The current show is selected by default. Press R to
> record it, and you can return to live TV with M if it's not automagic (I
> don't quite remember). The conditional tests in MythTV allow a recording to
> begin even after the start of the program.

hmm if you schedule it through the epg recording doesn't work! i wanted to
record a show yesterday, but it was a minute too late and it didn't start
recording...

btw, can a debug-switch be implemented? i'd like to see all the queries that
are made for example... and maybe some other things like uptime, etc...

bye, stephan


ijr at po

Jan 15, 2003, 2:50 PM

Post #5 of 42 (3522 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

On Wednesday 15 January 2003 10:48 am, Stephan Wentz wrote:
> yes, this is an issue... if a show starts at 20:00 and i program it at
> 20:01 mythtv doesn't record... but i think it should, when there is no
> conflict and (show_start_time <= now() and show_end_time > now())...

Err, it does start recording if the show's already begun.

> that reminds me of one of my questions that hasn't been answered yet, will
> future versions of mythtv let the backend do all the sql-query-stuff? right
> now the frontend does it, and i don't think this is a good idea, since the
> backend should provide all the data that the frontend uses...

I disagree. The backend doesn't need to provide _all_ the data, when much of
it's just as easily gotten by hitting the sql server remotely. It's not like
the client libraries are huge or anything.

Isaac


wentz at gmx

Jan 15, 2003, 3:25 PM

Post #6 of 42 (3523 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

On Wednesday 15 January 2003 22:50, Isaac Richards wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 January 2003 10:48 am, Stephan Wentz wrote:
> > yes, this is an issue... if a show starts at 20:00 and i program it at
> > 20:01 mythtv doesn't record... but i think it should, when there is no
> > conflict and (show_start_time <= now() and show_end_time > now())...
>
> Err, it does start recording if the show's already begun.

hmm, yes it does. strange. would swear that it didn't yesterday ;-)

> > that reminds me of one of my questions that hasn't been answered yet,
> > will future versions of mythtv let the backend do all the
> > sql-query-stuff? right now the frontend does it, and i don't think this
> > is a good idea, since the backend should provide all the data that the
> > frontend uses...
>
> I disagree. The backend doesn't need to provide _all_ the data, when much
> of it's just as easily gotten by hitting the sql server remotely. It's not
> like the client libraries are huge or anything.

but the data doesn't have to come from a mysql-database (of course, now that's
the only way...). i think the interface to the backend shouldn't be changed
when you switch for example to a xml-file or postgresql... this way all the
data-stuff has to be implemented into the frontend, and everytime you switch
to a new data-source the communication between frond/back changes (sort of,
i'm counting the data-storage as backend). when the backend would do all this
you could switch data-sources in the backend and leave the client as-is.
maybe there will be frontends for windows or who-knows-what... all these had
to be changed! so i guess it would make sense to let the server do all the
data-stuff and just deliver it to the client (frontend).

bye, stephan


daveb at ball-home

Jan 15, 2003, 4:19 PM

Post #7 of 42 (3490 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 15:53, Stephan Wentz wrote:
> btw, can a debug-switch be implemented? i'd like to see all the queries that
> are made for example... and maybe some other things like uptime, etc...

To log all queries run on a mysql server, edit the mysql startup scripts
to pass the --log option to mysqld (or safe_mysqld)
i.e.
/usr/bin/safe_mysqld --defaults-file=/etc/my.cnf --log=/home/mysql.log &

Some distributions do this by default (mandrake?) - others dont
(redhat?) If no file is specified for the log, it ends up as
hostname.log in the mysql data dir (/var/lib/mysql on RH)


nathan at ziarek

Jan 15, 2003, 4:34 PM

Post #8 of 42 (3510 views)
Permalink
RE: Record now? [In reply to]

Wait - if I am watching friends (and I watched from the beginning), in
the middle I can go to the EPG and hit record and have the entire show
recorded?

Nate


bjm at lvcm

Jan 15, 2003, 4:39 PM

Post #9 of 42 (3530 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

Stephan Wentz wrote:
...
>>>that reminds me of one of my questions that hasn't been answered yet,
>>>will future versions of mythtv let the backend do all the
>>>sql-query-stuff? right now the frontend does it, and i don't think this
>>>is a good idea, since the backend should provide all the data that the
>>>frontend uses...
>>
>>I disagree. The backend doesn't need to provide _all_ the data, when much
>>of it's just as easily gotten by hitting the sql server remotely. It's not
>>like the client libraries are huge or anything.
>
>
> but the data doesn't have to come from a mysql-database (of course, now that's
> the only way...). i think the interface to the backend shouldn't be changed
> when you switch for example to a xml-file or postgresql... this way all the
> data-stuff has to be implemented into the frontend, and everytime you switch
> to a new data-source the communication between frond/back changes (sort of,
> i'm counting the data-storage as backend). when the backend would do all this
> you could switch data-sources in the backend and leave the client as-is.

Stephan, all the source code for database connections are
in libraries that both the frontend and backend use at link
time. If, for instance, someone wanted to add support for
PostgreSQL they would make the changes to the lib source,
recompile, install then both front and backend could talk
to the new database.

There is no real advantage to have the backend interrupted to
simply passthru a query that the frontend could have done for
itself.

Also, there is the possibility of having more than one machine
with a tuner care on your network. So, for example, the frontend
should be able to check the database for the list of recorded
shows. If you pick a show to watch, it should then connect to
the backend on the machine where the file is stored.

-- bjm


wentz at gmx

Jan 15, 2003, 4:57 PM

Post #10 of 42 (3521 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

ok, agreed!

stephan

On Thursday 16 January 2003 00:39, Bruce Markey wrote:
> Stephan Wentz wrote:
> ...
>
> >>>that reminds me of one of my questions that hasn't been answered yet,
> >>>will future versions of mythtv let the backend do all the
> >>>sql-query-stuff? right now the frontend does it, and i don't think this
> >>>is a good idea, since the backend should provide all the data that the
> >>>frontend uses...
> >>
> >>I disagree. The backend doesn't need to provide _all_ the data, when
> >> much of it's just as easily gotten by hitting the sql server remotely.
> >> It's not like the client libraries are huge or anything.
> >
> > but the data doesn't have to come from a mysql-database (of course, now
> > that's the only way...). i think the interface to the backend shouldn't
> > be changed when you switch for example to a xml-file or postgresql...
> > this way all the data-stuff has to be implemented into the frontend, and
> > everytime you switch to a new data-source the communication between
> > frond/back changes (sort of, i'm counting the data-storage as backend).
> > when the backend would do all this you could switch data-sources in the
> > backend and leave the client as-is.
>
> Stephan, all the source code for database connections are
> in libraries that both the frontend and backend use at link
> time. If, for instance, someone wanted to add support for
> PostgreSQL they would make the changes to the lib source,
> recompile, install then both front and backend could talk
> to the new database.
>
> There is no real advantage to have the backend interrupted to
> simply passthru a query that the frontend could have done for
> itself.
>
> Also, there is the possibility of having more than one machine
> with a tuner care on your network. So, for example, the frontend
> should be able to check the database for the list of recorded
> shows. If you pick a show to watch, it should then connect to
> the backend on the machine where the file is stored.
>
> -- bjm
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev[at]snowman.net
> http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev


chuckw at quantumlinux

Jan 15, 2003, 5:03 PM

Post #11 of 42 (3489 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

> I disagree. The backend doesn't need to provide _all_ the data, when
> much of it's just as easily gotten by hitting the sql server remotely.
> It's not like the client libraries are huge or anything.

Well, it's certaintly less work to do it that way, but it reduces the
flexibility for using MythTV in a multicast corporate environment where
security is a concern.

-Chuck

--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Linux Technology
* Education |
* Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com
* Support | chuckw[at]quantumlinux.com

"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."
-- Jonathan B. Postel


bitsy_boffin at cyberdude

Jan 15, 2003, 6:36 PM

Post #12 of 42 (3504 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

Isaac Richards wrote:

>On Wednesday 15 January 2003 10:48 am, Stephan Wentz wrote:
>
>
>>that reminds me of one of my questions that hasn't been answered yet, will
>>future versions of mythtv let the backend do all the sql-query-stuff? right
>>now the frontend does it, and i don't think this is a good idea, since the
>>backend should provide all the data that the frontend uses...
>>
>>
>
>I disagree. The backend doesn't need to provide _all_ the data, when much of
>it's just as easily gotten by hitting the sql server remotely. It's not like
>the client libraries are huge or anything.
>
I think that Stephan has a point. I find applications that require
mySQL to be installed and create database/tables etc are a pain - namely
because it's generally not necessary for the software to have such a
hefty (even if mySQL isn't exactly hefty) requirement, it adds to the
complexity for the system needlessly in most instances. I think that it
should be considered to have myth use something like SQLite
(http://freshmeat.net/projects/sqlite/?topic_id=67) by default (so that
no database engine is required for Joe Public) but keeping the option of
developing an interface to mySQL/postgreSQL/mSQL/MSSQL/Oracle/whatever
in the future - the best way to do this IMHO would be to have the
backend do the communicating with the database (through an interface
module perhaps) and the front end communicate with the backend for the
information it requires - this way the proliferation of SQL is reduced
to preferably one easy to maintain class, lets say mythDBManager which
is extended by specific implementations - mySQLDBManager,
postgresDBManager, sqliteDBManager etc, SQL is never given to the
class's objects, only method invocations to perform certain actions
(dbmanager.getShows(), dbmanager.deleteShows(), etc etc).

I havn't seen the CVS code yet (waiting for the 0.8 release really) so I
don't know how the frontend-backend split works in it's entirity, but I
believe that it uses a network filesystem for getting hold of the shows,
if not then ignore me totally while I talk from my ass, but if so I
think that requirement should be removed too, the frontend should ask
the backend to stream it a show rather that relying on the user to
perform _another_ administrative task in getting a network file system
up and running properly.

To put it simply, I think the frontend should only have to know how to
contact the backend, and that's all - everything it needs (video,
program listings etc) it asks the backend to provide to it.

Well, just 2c off the top of my head.

---
James Sleeman


bjm at lvcm

Jan 15, 2003, 7:47 PM

Post #13 of 42 (3518 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

James Sleeman wrote:
> Isaac Richards wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday 15 January 2003 10:48 am, Stephan Wentz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>that reminds me of one of my questions that hasn't been answered yet, will
>>>future versions of mythtv let the backend do all the sql-query-stuff? right
>>>now the frontend does it, and i don't think this is a good idea, since the
>>>backend should provide all the data that the frontend uses...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I disagree. The backend doesn't need to provide _all_ the data, when much of
>>it's just as easily gotten by hitting the sql server remotely. It's not like
>>the client libraries are huge or anything.
>>
> I think that Stephan has a point. I find applications that require
> mySQL to be installed and create database/tables etc are a pain - namely
> because it's generally not necessary for the software to have such a
> hefty (even if mySQL isn't exactly hefty) requirement, it adds to the
> complexity for the system needlessly in most instances.

But not all instances, agreed? In this case, there are 1000's
shows with multiple fields of information, lists of recordings,
lists of titles to search for to be recorded, etc. Without a
database, the data would need to be stored in flat files and
you'd need to parse, error check, lock while writing... Oh,
write a new database. That would defiantly be a pain and
add complexity.


> ... I think that it
> should be considered to have myth use something like SQLite
> (http://freshmeat.net/projects/sqlite/?topic_id=67) by default (so that
> no database engine is required for Joe Public) but keeping the option of
> developing an interface to mySQL/postgreSQL/mSQL/MSSQL/Oracle/whatever
> in the future - the best way to do this IMHO would be to have the
> backend do the communicating with the database (through an interface
> module perhaps) and the front end communicate with the backend for the
> information it requires - this way the proliferation of SQL is reduced
> to preferably one easy to maintain class, lets say mythDBManager which
> is extended by specific implementations - mySQLDBManager,
> postgresDBManager, sqliteDBManager etc, SQL is never given to the
> class's objects, only method invocations to perform certain actions
> (dbmanager.getShows(), dbmanager.deleteShows(), etc etc).

The database connection information is in libraries that
are linked in both the client and server so there is no
duplication of code. Even though the method names are not
exactly as you describe, it should be fairly simple to
modify the code to connect to other databases. I assume
the choice of mySQL was because it is ubiquitous.

> I havn't seen the CVS code yet (waiting for the 0.8 release really) so I
> don't know how the frontend-backend split works in it's entirity, but I
> believe that it uses a network filesystem for getting hold of the shows,
> if not then ignore me totally while I talk from my ass, but if so I
> think that requirement should be removed too, the frontend should ask
> the backend to stream it a show rather that relying on the user to
> perform _another_ administrative task in getting a network file system
> up and running properly.

The A/V data is passed from the server to the client. There
is no requirement for file sharing.

> To put it simply, I think the frontend should only have to know how to
> contact the backend, and that's all - everything it needs (video,
> program listings etc) it asks the backend to provide to it.

To what end? What problem are we trying to solve? The
model should be one or more frontends connecting to one
or more backends. Tying a frontend to a specific backend
is counterproductive. As for db queries, realize that the
backend would need to connect to the database and send
the query then pass the result to the frontend. The frontend
can make the query (from the same library code) and cut
out the middleman.

-- bjm


bitsy_boffin at cyberdude

Jan 15, 2003, 10:29 PM

Post #14 of 42 (3540 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

Bruce Markey wrote:

> James Sleeman wrote:
>
>> I think that Stephan has a point. I find applications that require
>> mySQL to be installed and create database/tables etc are a pain -
>> namely because it's generally not necessary for the software to have
>> such a hefty (even if mySQL isn't exactly hefty) requirement, it adds
>> to the complexity for the system needlessly in most instances.
>
>
> But not all instances, agreed? In this case, there are 1000's
> shows with multiple fields of information, lists of recordings,
> lists of titles to search for to be recorded, etc.

True yes, not in all cases.

> Without a
> database, the data would need to be stored in flat files and
> you'd need to parse, error check, lock while writing... Oh,
> write a new database. That would defiantly be a pain and
> add complexity.

Obviously a (capable) database is required, and it is not an efficient
use of developer time to reinvent the database, hence my suggestion of a
lightweight embeddable database as a default engine (eg SQLite as I
noted, which I think would be quite capable of handling the data
requirements of mythtv, easily so) which gives you most of the benefits
of a big engine such as mySQL without the setup & administration & overhead.

> the choice of mySQL was because it is ubiquitous.

Only if you have need for an RDBMS, if you don't then why should myth
require it be installed when a lightweight embedded solution may be
better suited to the application.

>> To put it simply, I think the frontend should only have to know how
>> to contact the backend, and that's all - everything it needs (video,
>> program listings etc) it asks the backend to provide to it.
>
>
> To what end? What problem are we trying to solve? The

Abstraction -- PostGres != mySQL != MSSQL != jetSQL etc, there are
minor (and major) differences between these systems, by abstracting the
DBMS connectivity to an extendable class it means that the proliferation
of SQL and exceptions to SQL is limited to within that one class.

Simplification -- The less connections between frontend and backend, the
simpler it becomes, for developers and users alike. Ask yourself this,
if you were the frontend, why should you care about the database driving
all this, all you care about is what the backend tells you and what you
tell the backend.

With multiple developers it becomes even more so, if a developer working
on the backend comes up with some new stuff in the database engine
(whatever that shall be) he shouldn't have to describe all these low
level details to front end developers wanting to use this information,
they should just say to the backend - "Hey, I want this information" and
the backend gives it to them after doing "things" to the database, if
another developer comes along developing something else, they can also
just ask the backend for the information, less duplication of code, less
places for things to go wrong.

> The frontend can make the query (from the same library code) and cut
> out the middleman.

Yep, and I can go and milk a cow if I like and I cut out the milker,
truck driver, milk processing company, bottlers, and milk man - but I'd
much rather not know how my milk gets to me, all I care is I give money
to the milk man and he gives me milk all nice and ready to drink. If
I'm, the front end, I could find out what database we're using, open a
connection to it, select from the right table, being careful to make the
select correct, etc etc but I'd much rather not know the gory details,
I'd prefer to just ask a backend - backend.getListOfShows(channel, from,
to), or backend.deleteThisShow(showID) or backend.recordThisShow(showID)
or backend.streamMeShow(showID) you get the idea.

---
James Sleeman


pat at netburp

Jan 15, 2003, 10:36 PM

Post #15 of 42 (3485 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

That would be cool! Don't think it works that way now, though. The
data should be in the ringbuffer. Hmmm.



Pat


>Wait - if I am watching friends (and I watched from the beginning), in
>the middle I can go to the EPG and hit record and have the entire show
>recorded?
>
>Nate
>
>
>


joe at joestump

Jan 15, 2003, 10:46 PM

Post #16 of 42 (3515 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

New to the list, but I thought I should chime in. MySQL is a well known
DB, which allows, if nothing else, widespread addon/module development.
For instance, once I have my MythTV box up and running I plan on
writing a WAP module in PHP/MySQL because I'm sure I can figure out the
table structure, etc.

IMO MySQL is rather simple to set up - more so than most. Yes it would
be easier to embed it into the backend, but you would end up hindering
innovation in the end because the standard/files wouldn't be as open
and widely understood.

--Joe


On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 12:29 AM, James Sleeman wrote:

> Bruce Markey wrote:
>
>> James Sleeman wrote:
>>
>>> I think that Stephan has a point. I find applications that require
>>> mySQL to be installed and create database/tables etc are a pain -
>>> namely because it's generally not necessary for the software to have
>>> such a hefty (even if mySQL isn't exactly hefty) requirement, it
>>> adds to the complexity for the system needlessly in most instances.
>>
>>
>> But not all instances, agreed? In this case, there are 1000's
>> shows with multiple fields of information, lists of recordings,
>> lists of titles to search for to be recorded, etc.
>
> True yes, not in all cases.
>
>> Without a
>> database, the data would need to be stored in flat files and
>> you'd need to parse, error check, lock while writing... Oh,
>> write a new database. That would defiantly be a pain and
>> add complexity.
>
> Obviously a (capable) database is required, and it is not an efficient
> use of developer time to reinvent the database, hence my suggestion of
> a lightweight embeddable database as a default engine (eg SQLite as I
> noted, which I think would be quite capable of handling the data
> requirements of mythtv, easily so) which gives you most of the
> benefits of a big engine such as mySQL without the setup &
> administration & overhead.
>
>> the choice of mySQL was because it is ubiquitous.
>
> Only if you have need for an RDBMS, if you don't then why should myth
> require it be installed when a lightweight embedded solution may be
> better suited to the application.
>
>>> To put it simply, I think the frontend should only have to know how
>>> to contact the backend, and that's all - everything it needs (video,
>>> program listings etc) it asks the backend to provide to it.
>>
>>
>> To what end? What problem are we trying to solve? The
>
> Abstraction -- PostGres != mySQL != MSSQL != jetSQL etc, there are
> minor (and major) differences between these systems, by abstracting
> the DBMS connectivity to an extendable class it means that the
> proliferation of SQL and exceptions to SQL is limited to within that
> one class.
>
> Simplification -- The less connections between frontend and backend,
> the simpler it becomes, for developers and users alike. Ask yourself
> this, if you were the frontend, why should you care about the database
> driving all this, all you care about is what the backend tells you and
> what you tell the backend.
> With multiple developers it becomes even more so, if a developer
> working on the backend comes up with some new stuff in the database
> engine (whatever that shall be) he shouldn't have to describe all
> these low level details to front end developers wanting to use this
> information, they should just say to the backend - "Hey, I want this
> information" and the backend gives it to them after doing "things" to
> the database, if another developer comes along developing something
> else, they can also just ask the backend for the information, less
> duplication of code, less places for things to go wrong.
>
>> The frontend can make the query (from the same library code) and cut
>> out the middleman.
>
> Yep, and I can go and milk a cow if I like and I cut out the milker,
> truck driver, milk processing company, bottlers, and milk man - but
> I'd much rather not know how my milk gets to me, all I care is I give
> money to the milk man and he gives me milk all nice and ready to
> drink. If I'm, the front end, I could find out what database we're
> using, open a connection to it, select from the right table, being
> careful to make the select correct, etc etc but I'd much rather not
> know the gory details, I'd prefer to just ask a backend -
> backend.getListOfShows(channel, from, to), or
> backend.deleteThisShow(showID) or backend.recordThisShow(showID) or
> backend.streamMeShow(showID) you get the idea.
>
> ---
> James Sleeman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev[at]snowman.net
> http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
>
>
>
--
Joe Stump - joe[at]joestump.net
http://www.jerum.com
"Software never has bugs. It just develops random features."


help at pdscc

Jan 15, 2003, 11:12 PM

Post #17 of 42 (3488 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

On 15 Jan 2003 at 16:53, Stephan Wentz wrote:

> hmm if you schedule it through the epg recording doesn't work! i wanted to
> record a show yesterday, but it was a minute too late and it didn't start
> recording...

Hmm, sounds like something is not quite right with your setup, as that is
exactly how I do it. I'll be watching a show and decide I want to record it,
so I bring up the epg, scroll to the show, hit space bar (or some key on my
remote), select record only this showing and am off to the races.

--
Harondel J. Sibble
Sibble Computer Consulting
Creating solutions for the small business and home computer user.
help[at]pdscc.com (use pgp keyid 0x3AD5C11D) http://www.pdscc.com
(604) 739-3709 (voice/fax) (604) 686-2253 (pager)


help at pdscc

Jan 15, 2003, 11:16 PM

Post #18 of 42 (3510 views)
Permalink
RE: Record now? [In reply to]

On 15 Jan 2003 at 17:34, Nathan Ziarek wrote:

> Wait - if I am watching friends (and I watched from the beginning), in
> the middle I can go to the EPG and hit record and have the entire show
> recorded?

No, only from where you selected the recording to start
--
Harondel J. Sibble
Sibble Computer Consulting
Creating solutions for the small business and home computer user.
help[at]pdscc.com (use pgp keyid 0x3AD5C11D) http://www.pdscc.com
(604) 739-3709 (voice/fax) (604) 686-2253 (pager)


pat at netburp

Jan 15, 2003, 11:19 PM

Post #19 of 42 (3522 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

Uhhhh....what? I don't *thinik* there's a question of moving the data
out of mysql or *A* database anyway , I think the debate has been...

a) should the backend provide an interface to the database
or
b) should the frontend connect to the database directly

Security wise, a makes more sense, but how secure do you want your
recordings of M*A*S*H to be???

In most situations all connections would be behind a firewall
hopefully, and connecting to the db directly, and even through an api
would be less costly than asking for the info through the backend.

Personally, I don't care who knows that I record junkyard wars, but
ymmv. ;-)



Pat




Joseph Stump wrote:

> New to the list, but I thought I should chime in. MySQL is a well
> known DB, which allows, if nothing else, widespread addon/module
> development. For instance, once I have my MythTV box up and running I
> plan on writing a WAP module in PHP/MySQL because I'm sure I can
> figure out the table structure, etc.
>
> IMO MySQL is rather simple to set up - more so than most. Yes it would
> be easier to embed it into the backend, but you would end up hindering
> innovation in the end because the standard/files wouldn't be as open
> and widely understood.
>
> --Joe
>
>
> On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 12:29 AM, James Sleeman wrote:
>
>> Bruce Markey wrote:
>>
>>> James Sleeman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that Stephan has a point. I find applications that require
>>>> mySQL to be installed and create database/tables etc are a pain -
>>>> namely because it's generally not necessary for the software to
>>>> have such a hefty (even if mySQL isn't exactly hefty) requirement,
>>>> it adds to the complexity for the system needlessly in most instances.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But not all instances, agreed? In this case, there are 1000's
>>> shows with multiple fields of information, lists of recordings,
>>> lists of titles to search for to be recorded, etc.
>>
>>
>> True yes, not in all cases.
>>
>>> Without a
>>> database, the data would need to be stored in flat files and
>>> you'd need to parse, error check, lock while writing... Oh,
>>> write a new database. That would defiantly be a pain and
>>> add complexity.
>>
>>
>> Obviously a (capable) database is required, and it is not an
>> efficient use of developer time to reinvent the database, hence my
>> suggestion of a lightweight embeddable database as a default engine
>> (eg SQLite as I noted, which I think would be quite capable of
>> handling the data requirements of mythtv, easily so) which gives you
>> most of the benefits of a big engine such as mySQL without the setup
>> & administration & overhead.
>>
>>> the choice of mySQL was because it is ubiquitous.
>>
>>
>> Only if you have need for an RDBMS, if you don't then why should myth
>> require it be installed when a lightweight embedded solution may be
>> better suited to the application.
>>
>>>> To put it simply, I think the frontend should only have to know how
>>>> to contact the backend, and that's all - everything it needs
>>>> (video, program listings etc) it asks the backend to provide to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To what end? What problem are we trying to solve? The
>>
>>
>> Abstraction -- PostGres != mySQL != MSSQL != jetSQL etc, there are
>> minor (and major) differences between these systems, by abstracting
>> the DBMS connectivity to an extendable class it means that the
>> proliferation of SQL and exceptions to SQL is limited to within that
>> one class.
>>
>> Simplification -- The less connections between frontend and backend,
>> the simpler it becomes, for developers and users alike. Ask yourself
>> this, if you were the frontend, why should you care about the
>> database driving all this, all you care about is what the backend
>> tells you and what you tell the backend.
>> With multiple developers it becomes even more so, if a developer
>> working on the backend comes up with some new stuff in the database
>> engine (whatever that shall be) he shouldn't have to describe all
>> these low level details to front end developers wanting to use this
>> information, they should just say to the backend - "Hey, I want this
>> information" and the backend gives it to them after doing "things" to
>> the database, if another developer comes along developing something
>> else, they can also just ask the backend for the information, less
>> duplication of code, less places for things to go wrong.
>>
>>> The frontend can make the query (from the same library code) and cut
>>> out the middleman.
>>
>>
>> Yep, and I can go and milk a cow if I like and I cut out the milker,
>> truck driver, milk processing company, bottlers, and milk man - but
>> I'd much rather not know how my milk gets to me, all I care is I give
>> money to the milk man and he gives me milk all nice and ready to
>> drink. If I'm, the front end, I could find out what database we're
>> using, open a connection to it, select from the right table, being
>> careful to make the select correct, etc etc but I'd much rather not
>> know the gory details, I'd prefer to just ask a backend -
>> backend.getListOfShows(channel, from, to), or
>> backend.deleteThisShow(showID) or backend.recordThisShow(showID) or
>> backend.streamMeShow(showID) you get the idea.
>>
>> ---
>> James Sleeman
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mythtv-dev mailing list
>> mythtv-dev[at]snowman.net
>> http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Joe Stump - joe[at]joestump.net
> http://www.jerum.com
> "Software never has bugs. It just develops random features."
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev[at]snowman.net
> http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev


wentz at gmx

Jan 16, 2003, 4:05 AM

Post #20 of 42 (3529 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

Am Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2003 07:19 schrieb Pat Pflaum:
> Uhhhh....what? I don't *thinik* there's a question of moving the data
> out of mysql or *A* database anyway , I think the debate has been...
>
> a) should the backend provide an interface to the database
> or
> b) should the frontend connect to the database directly
>
> Security wise, a makes more sense, but how secure do you want your
> recordings of M*A*S*H to be???
>
> In most situations all connections would be behind a firewall
> hopefully, and connecting to the db directly, and even through an api
> would be less costly than asking for the info through the backend.
>
> Personally, I don't care who knows that I record junkyard wars, but
> ymmv. ;-)

but it's not only a security issue! i'm still of the oppinion that it is much
easier to have a non-chaning interface to the backend (read the last posting
of James Sleeman, he wrote it in detail...) rather than letting the frontend
do this...

i think everybody want that mythtv grows, that more and more users use it (i
guess every coder wants that), and maybe someone will code for example a
frontend for windows - but he'll have big problems trying that... (correct me
if i'm wrong) mysql for windows isn't open source, you have to buy it... a
standardized interface to the backend would leaf much less work for the
frontend-code!
or for example when you want to access data not through mysql but plain
xml-files, but can't access the file-system of the backend - should every
frontend get his own program-data from the internet?
or think of a frontend on a mobile device that can play streams, but can't
connect to a database...
the server could even cache the data in memory and give the frontend only the
data that it can display in the epg, so speed shouldn't be an issue...

of course these are not relevant at the moment, and the backend/frontend-split
is relative new, but i think these thinks should be considered right now,
because now they can be changed easily...

bye, stephan


nathan at ziarek

Jan 16, 2003, 6:50 AM

Post #21 of 42 (3513 views)
Permalink
RE: Record now? [In reply to]

>> Wait - if I am watching friends (and I watched from the beginning),
in
>> the middle I can go to the EPG and hit record and have the entire
show
>> recorded?
>No, only from where you selected the recording to start


OK, then I propose this as a possible feature. If I watched it the whole
time, then it is all saved in the ringbuffer...I can't imagine it would
be too hard to scrape out just the parts you need and start a new file.

Ah the ironies of someone telling someone else that "it shouldn't be
hard" when they wouldn't even know where to look :)

Nate


mythtv at matter

Jan 16, 2003, 10:00 AM

Post #22 of 42 (3538 views)
Permalink
RE: Record now? [In reply to]

I guess the feasibility of this depends on how the ringbuffer works - can
you tell just by examining the ringbuffer file where you started watching
a particular channel? If you were surfing and stumbled on "Friends" and
decided to tape it, you only want to copy the portion of the ringbuffer
that is "Friends".

If you change channels, does the ringbuffer start over from the begining
of the file? If not, does it indicate that a channel change occured or
does it just basically have a capture of what I've been watching (and,
gosh, what are the privacy implications of that!:-)

And then there is the issue of liveTV settings vs recording settings -
they might be different and how does the code deal with that.

I think it would be a neat feature, but I'm not sure it is that easy. I
can think of a few more issues but I have to leave for work now :-)

Larry

>>> Wait - if I am watching friends (and I watched from the beginning),
> in
>>> the middle I can go to the EPG and hit record and have the entire
> show
>>> recorded?
>>No, only from where you selected the recording to start
>
>
> OK, then I propose this as a possible feature. If I watched it the whole
> time, then it is all saved in the ringbuffer...I can't imagine it would
> be too hard to scrape out just the parts you need and start a new file.
>
> Ah the ironies of someone telling someone else that "it shouldn't be
> hard" when they wouldn't even know where to look :)
>
> Nate
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev[at]snowman.net
> http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev


ijr at po

Jan 16, 2003, 10:23 AM

Post #23 of 42 (3499 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

On Thursday 16 January 2003 12:00 pm, Larry Matter wrote:
> I guess the feasibility of this depends on how the ringbuffer works - can
> you tell just by examining the ringbuffer file where you started watching
> a particular channel? If you were surfing and stumbled on "Friends" and
> decided to tape it, you only want to copy the portion of the ringbuffer
> that is "Friends".
>
> If you change channels, does the ringbuffer start over from the begining
> of the file? If not, does it indicate that a channel change occured or
> does it just basically have a capture of what I've been watching (and,
> gosh, what are the privacy implications of that!:-)

The ring buffer mostly starts over when you change channels. It doesn't do
stuff like the file headers, etc, but..

> And then there is the issue of liveTV settings vs recording settings -
> they might be different and how does the code deal with that.

Heh, the current stuff just keeps the current live-tv settings if a show
that's supposed to be recorded comes on while you're watching tv. So, it
doesn't really deal with it =)

> I think it would be a neat feature, but I'm not sure it is that easy. I
> can think of a few more issues but I have to leave for work now :-)

Biggest issue would be the amount of time it would take to copy all of the
data from the ringbuffer over to another file.

Isaac


wentz at gmx

Jan 16, 2003, 10:38 AM

Post #24 of 42 (3515 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

Am Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2003 18:00 schrieb Larry Matter:
> I guess the feasibility of this depends on how the ringbuffer works - can
> you tell just by examining the ringbuffer file where you started watching
> a particular channel? If you were surfing and stumbled on "Friends" and
> decided to tape it, you only want to copy the portion of the ringbuffer
> that is "Friends".

hmm the backend has all the info's he needs for this...
supposing we stay on one channel all the time:
the backend could write the current position in the ringbuffer to the database
everytime a new show starts (it can get the info's from the database), so it
should be relative easy to grab whole shows (even shows that you watched a
few days ago...).
if we switch channels we have a problem, of course ;-)
maybe only make a database entry for watchings (bad word - don't know better)
> 10 secs, or something similar... if you're watching friends and zap around
in the middle of the show and want to record it afterwards it should be
possible to build a video-sequence with data from the ringbuffer that fits
into our needs - channel and time has got to be right, everything else will
be discarded.
doesn't sound easy, but could be done ;-)
the backend can for example cache the "zap-data", and write it only once in a
while to the database, and then record really every single zapping...

> If you change channels, does the ringbuffer start over from the begining
> of the file? If not, does it indicate that a channel change occured or
> does it just basically have a capture of what I've been watching (and,
> gosh, what are the privacy implications of that!:-)

i guess it will start over, because of that it's a _ring_buffer!

> And then there is the issue of liveTV settings vs recording settings -
> they might be different and how does the code deal with that.
>
> I think it would be a neat feature, but I'm not sure it is that easy. I
> can think of a few more issues but I have to leave for work now :-)

yes, definitive! (both, hehe)

bye, stephan


chuckw at quantumlinux

Jan 17, 2003, 2:10 AM

Post #25 of 42 (3493 views)
Permalink
Re: Record now? [In reply to]

> a) should the backend provide an interface to the database or
> b) should the frontend connect to the database directly
>
> Security wise, a makes more sense, but how secure do you want your
> recordings of M*A*S*H to be???
>
> In most situations all connections would be behind a firewall hopefully,
> and connecting to the db directly, and even through an api would be less
> costly than asking for the info through the backend.
>
> Personally, I don't care who knows that I record junkyard wars, but
> ymmv. ;-)

From a programming standpoint, wouldn't it be better to hide the database
behind an API anyway?

As for security, I agree that this thing should never be directly on the
internet. However I can see a multicast system in MythTV's future which
makes it all the more important to hide everything behind an API.

-Chuck



--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Linux Technology
* Education |
* Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com
* Support | chuckw[at]quantumlinux.com

"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."
-- Jonathan B. Postel

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All MythTV dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.