• 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
MySQL vs UPnP sharing
#31
I'll await to see what the UPnP version does in future releases. I'm still not a fan of having to have 2 htpcs running just to use 1 that's not the main (granted, having a local server, I am in the minority). Obviously now it's not a great replacement for mySQL by a long shot due to not being able to incorporate it into the library. I've seen some people hack a headless server version and I've thought about it for no other reason than to relieve my actual HTPCs from having to do any scanning of any kind (leave that up to the server to do it). This way when I start up any of the rooms, the library is up to date (I generally leave this up to my main one just because it is the beefiest of the HTPCs, but sometimes manually update from a secondary room).
Reply
#32
I like the option to run a headless XBMC UPNP Server on a different machines. One in RPi, One in the NAS, Unraid, Desktop... etc

It is really usefully if different XBMC UPNP Server able to share files while connected they appear shared.
Reply
#33
I just read this thread with interest. I am a mysql proponent, here's some reasons:

1. Works now with everything synchronised.

2. I have a server (but think of it as a nas if you like). When playing a stream I don't want the stream to go [nas]->[master xbmc upnp machine]->[xbmc I am watching on]. If that means having identical paths on all xbmc machines, that's OK with me. In fact why not move sources.xml into the database too so everyone in the house gets the same.

3. I acknowledge that devs may find it a PITA coding for both sqlite (ie the local dB) and mysql. However I don't see the point in writing *yet another upnp server with database backend* when mysql has taken all the hard work out of multiuser database management. Seems a lot of hassle to design a stand alone xbmc version with all the extra bells and whistles when the job is done now with XBMC.

4. Does the upnp standard even support a "watched" flag? Or will the devs be taking upnp outside the standard?

5. Coupled with 4, upnp seems to be implemented in varying inconsistent ways between a lot of products - it's a messy environment. I'd hate to see the dev time spent on constantly trying to make their upnp server compatible with every two bit media player implementation from China. Time better spent (IMHO) on core XBMC code.

6. Mysql isn't that hard to set up compared to the benefits. Of course running linux, where it has long been a staple part of the OS environment may skew my perception of the ease of that.

The IMHO tag applies to all of this of course and I acknowledge that upnp may be useful and appropriate in some circumstances, and for playing to some non xbmc platforms (lord are there any of those left?)

If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the 'thumbs up' button to give thanks :) (People with less than 20 posts won't see the "thumbs up" button.)
Reply
#34
Mysql has been working well for me. That said, I respect the XBMC Team and the accomplishments they've made. If Mysql gets replaced I'm sure whatever replaces it will be awesome.
Reply
#35
Thanks for all the hard work Martijn, etc...

I'm confident whatever solution you guys come up with to replace mysql will be a feature improvement over what exists today and I eagerly await any design announcement on what direction you guys decide to go in.
Reply
#36
I like the sql option because it runs full-time on my media/file server. I don't have to have a front end constantly running or online. My only caveat against it is that I haven't setup sabnzbd to update (if it's possible) mysql instead of pushing a front end to update for new content.
Reply
#37
Is this planned on being used only for library? Currently the skin/gui settings are lumped together with hardware specific settings like resolution and audio settings. I feel like if sql was used this could be broken up more effectively allowing those with multiple devices with a synced library to have more flexibility. I think the benefit of sql is that if you wanted you could store all the settings and reload them if you ever had a hard-drive failure or something. My thought would be to have 3 tables - device/hardware specific settings, profile specific settings, and global settings. Then each device/profile would load a list where hardware over-rides profile and profile over-rides global. I'm not all that familiar with uPnP but would something like that be possible with it?

I'm all for the change to uPnP as it sounds way more simple to use. Although, I think one of the great things about XBMC is the flexibility and customization and I fear we will lose some of that getting rid of sql. Obviously we wouldn't lose any current flexibility as it sounds like uPnP can or will be able to handle everything sql can do now but what about potential future flexibility?
Reply
#38
Based on what's being discussed by the team, future potential is going to be great. Anything that can't be done directly in the UPnP protocol can easily be supplemented by XBMC's other APIs. Sync settings, sync multi room playback, temp copy a file to a laptop for offline use while still using the same library database, and more is all certainly possible.
Reply
#39
Ah, that sounds awesome. You're making me excited... Smile
Reply
#40
so upnp doesnt carry over the watched or not feature?
Reply
#41
(2013-03-07, 18:19)hewligun Wrote: so upnp doesnt carry over the watched or not feature?
It does from server to clients, but not from clients to server.
Reply
#42
(2013-03-07, 21:02)rterblanche Wrote:
(2013-03-07, 18:19)hewligun Wrote: so upnp doesnt carry over the watched or not feature?
It does from server to clients, but not from clients to server.

So by server you mean the instance of XBMC the others are connecting to? So anything played on that machine will carry over to other clients but those dont carry back over?

Does the shares for the library on server need to be SMB or can they be local?
Reply
#43
(2013-03-07, 18:19)hewligun Wrote: so upnp doesnt carry over the watched or not feature?

Currently it is only one-way from server to client, but in the future it will be two-way.
Reply
#44
(2013-03-08, 03:42)Ned Scott Wrote:
(2013-03-07, 18:19)hewligun Wrote: so upnp doesnt carry over the watched or not feature?

Currently it is only one-way from server to client, but in the future it will be two-way.

Sorry one last question. With how it will be does that mean it doesn't matter if my sources or local or smb on the server side? Is it recommended one way or another? I can skip MySQL for now if watched is a future deal.

Also will I be able to pick up where it left off in another room with upnp now or is that also not available.
Reply
#45
UPnP doesn't care if things are local or network paths. I have no idea what the ETA is on the watched status fix is.

Not sure about resume points.
Reply
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
MySQL vs UPnP sharing1