Re: Re: MyHAP ?? (was Protocol questions)

["Frank Mc Alinden" <frankmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mal


> It always struck me as a bit curious that xPLMediaNet
"modules" all
> communicated via their own xpl-like internal system, rather than
> using xPL.  I almost felt like it was an entire xPL network in
> itself, but shutting out other applications, and it looks now like
> that was exactly the plan all along.

I think your being a little bit mean here Mal.......

Frank


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mal Lansell" <mal@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:34 PM
Subject: [ukha_xpl] Re: MyHAP ?? (was Protocol questions)


> Obviously Tony can do what he wants, so that's that I suppose.
>
> It always struck me as a bit curious that xPLMediaNet
"modules" all
> communicated via their own xpl-like internal system, rather than
> using xPL.  I almost felt like it was an entire xPL network in
> itself, but shutting out other applications, and it looks now like
> that was exactly the plan all along.
>
> Personally, I'd rather have individual media players and sources as
> their own xPL apps, allowing people to mix and match and to control
> them however they need via xPLHal.  That's certainly the approach
> I'm taking with the MediaPortal plugin, and I'll probably do
> something similar for the Barix Exstreamer (this is why I want
> media.basic back!)
>
> However, my to-do list is getting rather long now.  In order of
> priority:
>
> 1) xPLDiag - Diagnostics Tool
>
> 2) MediaPortal plug-in.  Control playback of media files on an HTPC
> running MediaPortal, as well as sending xPL messages from
> MediaPortal menus.
>
> 3) xPLRouter - secure subnet/internet bridging.
>
> 4) xPLMCERemote - xPL messages from the Windows MCE Remote control.
>
> 5) xPLExstreamer - control via xPL and to remove the need to install
> a web server to provide the audio files.
>
> I'm tempted to knock up a quick xPLExec process spawner first though!
>
> Mal
>
>
>
> --- In ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx, "Ian Lowe" <ianlowe@x...>
wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone have any background on this?  I just went and
looked
> at it and
>> while there are
>> > differences, it looks an awful lot like xPL.
>>
>> It does, doesn't it?
>>
>> I don't really have much background to add - I'll go on the record
> here that
>> I don't have information about this that I'm choosing not to
> disclose.
>> Frankly, I'm as taken aback as the rest of you.
>>
>> > I don't begrudge him creating a new protocol, but I can't
quite
> understand
>> why a new protocol that is > basically a slight variation of an
> existing
>> protocol (that he was involved with) exists?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> xPL Links: http://www.xplproject.org.uk http://www.xplhal.com
> http://www.xpl.myby.co.uk
> To Post a Message: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
> To Subscribe:  ukha_xpl-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> To Unsubscribe:  ukha_xpl-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>