2014-05-06, 22:10
So, here's my use case:
I've got a headless low-power PC running XBMC (Gotham). Ideally, I'd like to connect to it from our desktops. Prior to Gotham, I was using the MySQL setup and yeah, everything worked... but I see benifits of the modularity and design of upnp support. Currently, (as others have mentioned) upnp support does not have all the features that MySQL has.
While, I was exploring some of the new features of Gotham (specifically, https://github.com/Jalle19/xbmc-video-server)... I saw how rich the XBMC's RPC mechanism is: It can query for content, stream videos, etc.
So, it got me asking the question: Does the RPC mechanism has enough features that it would possible create an XBMC "thin client". On a desktop I'd fire-up the thin client and search for videos/music/whatever and it would forward these requests (via RPC) to another machine (my headless PC). Likewise, media content, thumbnails, resume, and watched status's would all be proxied to the headless PC.
Ofcourse, if the headless PC was running a different version from the thin client - problems would arise. ...but I imagine presenting to the user, api version mismatches and reduced functionality would be a suitable solution.
Anyway, is this a completely unrealistic solution? Or would it just create all the same problems as MySQL solution. Or in the near future will XBMC to push all of its features of into upnp... then calling XBMC client a over-glorified upnp client
I've got a headless low-power PC running XBMC (Gotham). Ideally, I'd like to connect to it from our desktops. Prior to Gotham, I was using the MySQL setup and yeah, everything worked... but I see benifits of the modularity and design of upnp support. Currently, (as others have mentioned) upnp support does not have all the features that MySQL has.
While, I was exploring some of the new features of Gotham (specifically, https://github.com/Jalle19/xbmc-video-server)... I saw how rich the XBMC's RPC mechanism is: It can query for content, stream videos, etc.
So, it got me asking the question: Does the RPC mechanism has enough features that it would possible create an XBMC "thin client". On a desktop I'd fire-up the thin client and search for videos/music/whatever and it would forward these requests (via RPC) to another machine (my headless PC). Likewise, media content, thumbnails, resume, and watched status's would all be proxied to the headless PC.
Ofcourse, if the headless PC was running a different version from the thin client - problems would arise. ...but I imagine presenting to the user, api version mismatches and reduced functionality would be a suitable solution.
Anyway, is this a completely unrealistic solution? Or would it just create all the same problems as MySQL solution. Or in the near future will XBMC to push all of its features of into upnp... then calling XBMC client a over-glorified upnp client