<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Robert McNamara <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robert.mcnamara@gmail.com">robert.mcnamara@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Cecil Watson <<a href="mailto:knoppmyth@gmail.com">knoppmyth@gmail.com</a>> wrote:s<br>
<div class="im">><br>
> Having read the -dev archives it seems, most of the discussion is in regards<br>
> to using Silverlight. I'd ask another question. Why move to a browser<br>
> based setup? Seems the only argument is "there are quite a few of us that<br>
> have headless backends".<br>
<br>
</div>Note that while we will be offering a browser based setup experience,<br>
we have been quite clear that we are building a setup *API*, upon<br>
which we will offer a Browser based setup. There will be nothing<br>
preventing one from writing a MythUI based setup, a silverlight based<br>
setup, a flash based setup, a perl CLI setup, or anything else, so<br>
long as it speaks our standards-compliant setup mechanism.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div>Thanks for the clarification. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
> Since it's inception, after an install and reboot, KnoppMyth/LinHES has<br>
> automatically started mythtv-setup. Now, it has been a while since I've<br>
> looked at other distros and I seem to recall reading MythDora has gone to a<br>
> browser based configuration. My opinion, is that a MythTV setup should be<br>
> looked at like an appliance. Most everything that needs to be done should<br>
> be doable with a remote via a "10' UI experience".<br>
<br>
</div>I have more than a passing interest in writing a MythUI interface to<br>
the new setup API. AFAIK Stuart Morgan does too. Moreover, any setup<br>
interface can offer as much or as little of the setup options as it<br>
likes, and organize it however it likes. For me, this would be a 5-6<br>
step extremely simplified setup. We've never made any respresentation<br>
that the browser based setup would be the only acceptable one, just<br>
that that's where we're choosing to focus our efforts for the initial<br>
run at it.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div>Cool! <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
> Now, I realize, that BrowserBasedSetup is in it's infancy. However what<br>
> immediately comes to mind is instead of running mythtv-setup which I can<br>
> fully control with a just a remote, I'll have to launch a browser. Will<br>
> MythBrowser work? Will it work well with just a remote? If I have to go to<br>
> another system to connect to the web server running on the backend, instead<br>
> of making it simpler, another layer of complexity has been added to setup<br>
> process.<br>
<br>
</div>The browser setup probably wouldn't work well with the remote. A<br>
remote-based stup would be easily writeable, however. I put this<br>
functioning setup together in a weekend last year, and it didn't even<br>
have a setup API to plug in to. I'd likely pick up the work again<br>
once the API is done:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.fecitfacta.com/simplesetupexample.ogg" target="_blank">http://www.fecitfacta.com/simplesetupexample.ogg</a><br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div>Looks good.<br clear="all"></div></div><br>-- <br>Enjoy the day,<br><br>Cecil<br>