Re: Recent model SqueezeBox display and control ...

[Kevin Hawkins <yahoogroupskh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Great explanation - much clearer now... :-)

K

Edward Pearson wrote:
>
>
> mysqueezebox.com is a bunch of copies of Squeezebox Server running on
a
> server farm somewhere. The player really is just connected to it and
> not to
> your local server. I don't think there's a move away from local
servers, I
> think it's just that Logitech realise, correctly, that there's a big
> market
> of people out there who'd like to listen to net radio and music
> services but
> don't want or need or understand a scary-sounding server in the house.
>
> This multi-server model gets clouded a little because there is a UDP
> broadcast protocol that the servers use to discover each other on a
LAN.
> Then there's an http request that they make to each other to get a
list of
> players connected. A server will also make a call to that same
> webservice on
> mysqueezebox.com if you're registered with it. This is how the player
menu
> in the web interface works; it knows of players on the LAN and what
server
> they are connected to even though they aren't connected to the server
> hosting that web interface.
>
> But you can't install the xAP plugin on mysqueezebox.com - so the
short
> answer to your question is no.
>
> Things are about to get interesting with the Touch however. It runs
> its own
> cut down server, principally so you can play songs from an attached
flash
> card or USB drive. No plugin's allowed however. But the Touch (and
Radio)
> are powerful enough to run their own xAP software. This was true for
> controller too but it powers down every time you look away from it so
it's
> not much use as a xAP device. Touch is generally on. It's a player,
> controller and server all in one box.
>
> So the right migration for xAP on Squeezebox is to extend xAP from the
> server and have it supported in the controller part of these new smart
> clients natively. It's just that right now we have this awkward
> half-way-house of dumb players talking to a remote server we can't
extend.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xap_automation@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:xap_automation%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:xap_automation@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:xap_automation%40yahoogroups.com>]
> > On Behalf Of Kevin Hawkins
> > Sent: 25 October 2009 11:51
> > To: xap_automation@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:xap_automation%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [xap_automation] Recent model SqueezeBox display and
> control
> ...
> >
> > What I was really exploring is ... if you had SqueezeCentre
running ,
> > (along with the xAP plugin) , is there some way to access a SB
player
> > even though it may be attached to mySqueezeBox.com rather than
> > SqueezeCentre ? In that way you'd still be using the same
codebase and
> > plugin but it (plugin or SC) would be kinda redirecting commands
using
> > an onward socket interface to any non SqueezeCentre attached
players...
> > Still one central xAP control engine in Perl within SqueezCentre.
> > Probably talking nonsense here ;-)
> >
> > K
> >
> > Edward Pearson wrote:
> > >
> > > These models follow the new architecture first seen in the
Controller;
> > > they run Linux with the application software being mostly
written in
> > > Lua. So yes, there's no reason why they can't be used in
automation
> > > scenarios without Squeezebox Server (and indeed be much more
> > > versatile) but it means that this software will need to be
developed
> > > from scratch. I currently have no firm plans to develop such
software
> > > though the Lua book is currently on my bedside table.
> > >
> > > *From:* xap_automation@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:xap_automation%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:xap_automation@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:xap_automation%40yahoogroups.com>]
*On Behalf Of *Kevin Hawkins
> > > *Sent:* 24 October 2009 15:24
> > > *To:* xap_automation@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:xap_automation%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > *Subject:* [xap_automation] Recent model SqueezeBox display
and
> > > control ...
> > >
> > > The later SqueezeBox models are moving towards a direct
connect with
> > > mysqueezebox.com bypassing SqueezeCentre. I'm guessing this
mean that
> > > they become lost to control and display messaging
implemented via
> > > SqueezeCentre. Is there an alternative 'direct' control
interface to
> > > these devices such that they can still be integrated into an
> automation
> > > system - and for example have volume control, messages
displayed
> on them
> > > etc whilst connected to mysqueezebox/Napster/Rhapsody etc...
?
> > >
> > > K
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>



------------------------------------