“EnTerr” wrote:
I said ‘’‘no separate “* Edit blah” buttons next to the fields’‘’. You can use the buttons as text fields. There is no need to have 2 different entities side to side. Buttons already have a label inside.
Yes, that would clean the clutter.
“ioan” wrote:
I’m sure you are right and everything could be done with roUrlTransfer, but for me it was easier to use roStreamSocket. I’m not sure how would m-jpeg or rtsp be implemented with roUrlTransfer, but I know how to do it with roStreamSocket. How do you continuously read packets into a roByteArray from the socket using roUrlTransfer?
Oh, that! Running an “infinite” download for mjpeg or rtsp. I got nothing on that with roUrlXfer.
But: I disabled any authentication on the Dlink camera and even the simplest /image.jpg still does not work - which to me points at the difficulties of implementing right http protocol when doing it from scratch.
PS. wait - “no authentication” is supported, right?! what authentications are supported currently?
You said you don’t have “digest” yet, so your must be “basic” but does not work with Dlink.
OTOH, i used CURL from command line (–basic, --digest, --anyauth) to test Dlink and it works fine with basic and no-auth, does not work with digest.
“EnTerr” wrote:
“ioan” wrote:
I’m sure you are right and everything could be done with roUrlTransfer, but for me it was easier to use roStreamSocket. I’m not sure how would m-jpeg or rtsp be implemented with roUrlTransfer, but I know how to do it with roStreamSocket. How do you continuously read packets into a roByteArray from the socket using roUrlTransfer?
Oh, that! Running an “infinite” download for mjpeg or rtsp. I got nothing on that with roUrlXfer.But: I disabled any authentication on the Dlink camera and even the simplest /image.jpg still does not work - which to me points at the difficulties of implementing right http protocol when doing it from scratch.
PS. wait - “no authentication” is supported, right?! what authentications are supported currently?
Majority of cameras with mjpeg stream work (with or without basic authentication) right now. D-Link cameras seem like are sending a realm challenge even without authentication and that’s not supported just yet. I found a d-link camera online with open access and looked the wireshark capture shows exactly that.
At this point cameras that I know that work fine (tested or reported as working from the users) are most models from Axis, Panasonic, TrendNet, Samsung, Foscam, Airlink101, Android Webcam… D-Link was reported to me as not working before but I didn’t have access to one until today.
“ioan” wrote:
Majority of cameras with mjpeg stream work (with or without basic authentication) right now. D-Link cameras seem like are sending a realm challenge even without authentication and that’s not supported just yet. I found a d-link camera online with open access and looked the wireshark capture shows exactly that.
No, that’s not it!
I just figured it out on my end - apparently it’s really, really, REALLY important (WTF?) to type the URL end with a “?” - and i was not doing that because why would you do an empty query when there are no params^. And it was not working. But by accident i read the help text of the web interface and it’s stressing to append “?” and prepend “/” - so i tried that and now it works - at least the “/image.jpg?”. With and without authentication! And so i ran here to take back my words but too late.
Here is a radical proposal - do not rely what people type will start with “/” and end with “?” - just check if that’s the case and “fix” it otherwise:
if left(path, 1) <> "/" then path = "/" + path
if path.instr("?") < 0 then path = path + "?"
(^) in retrospect, now i can divine you are slapping a cache-buster param behind
“EnTerr” wrote:
“ioan” wrote:
Majority of cameras with mjpeg stream work (with or without basic authentication) right now. D-Link cameras seem like are sending a realm challenge even without authentication and that’s not supported just yet. I found a d-link camera online with open access and looked the wireshark capture shows exactly that.
No, that’s not it! :lol:
I just figured it out on my end - apparently it’s really, really, REALLY important (WTF?) to type the URL end with a “?” - and i was not doing that because why would you do an empty query when there are no params^. And it was not working. But by accident i read the help text of the web interface and it’s stressing to append “?” and prepend “/” - so i tried that and now it works - at least the “/image.jpg?”. With and without authentication! And so i ran here to take back my words but too late.Here is a radical proposal - do not rely what people type will start with “/” and end with “?” - just check if that’s the case and “fix” it otherwise:
if left(path, 1) <> "/" then path = "/" + path if path.instr("?") < 0 then path = path + "?"(^) in retrospect, now i can divine you are slapping a cache-buster param behind
I guess not all D-Link cameras have problems, but for example this one has:http://82.209.221.91:8080/2.mjpg?997267910[/url:p25ax9gp]which supposedly is a D-Link. The check for “/” and “?” WAS in the to-do, not anymore though, because now I just have to copy the code
(For the above camera I only tried the mjpeg link, I don’t know what the picture link for it would be).
“ioan” wrote:
I guess not all D-Link cameras have problems, but for example this one has:http://82.209.221.91:8080/2.mjpg?997267910[/url:2ni6nri5]which supposedly is a D-Link. The check for “/” and “?” WAS in the to-do, not anymore though, because now I just have to copy the code
(For the above camera I only tried the mjpeg link, I don’t know what the picture link for it would be).
It doesn’t sound like a D-link:
< Server: Boa/0.94.14rc21
< WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="streaming_server"
Could be Vivotek, Zavio, TP-Link (somewhat random results from a search).
“EnTerr” wrote:
“ioan” wrote:
I guess not all D-Link cameras have problems, but for example this one has:http://82.209.221.91:8080/2.mjpg?997267910[/url:2oyg1b7a]which supposedly is a D-Link. The check for “/” and “?” WAS in the to-do, not anymore though, because now I just have to copy the code
(For the above camera I only tried the mjpeg link, I don’t know what the picture link for it would be).
It doesn’t sound like a D-link:< Server: Boa/0.94.14rc21 < WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="streaming_server"Could be Vivotek, Zavio, TP-Link (somewhat random results from a search).
You are somewhere on the West Coast, right? I’m in Salem Oregon.
“ioan” wrote:
“EnTerr” wrote:
Could be Vivotek, Zavio, TP-Link (somewhat random results from a search).
You are somewhere on the West Coast, right? I’m in Salem Oregon.
Yes… how, ummm, does this relate?
“EnTerr” wrote:
“ioan” wrote:
“EnTerr” wrote:
Could be Vivotek, Zavio, TP-Link (somewhat random results from a search).
You are somewhere on the West Coast, right? I’m in Salem Oregon.
Yes… how, ummm, does this relate?
Does not. I was just curious
Does IP Camera Basic or Pro have audio, meaning that if the IP camera has audio feed that it will show the video and play the audio on the Roku?
Thanks for your work on this.
“Kipchak” wrote:
Does IP Camera Basic or Pro have audio, meaning that if the IP camera has audio feed that it will show the video and play the audio on the Roku?Thanks for your work on this.
No, sound doesn’t work, but I’m trying to find a way to make it work.
So @ioan - i notice the channel got updated from (wrong) Pro to Basic version - is this the new version or they just corrected the prior mistake?
I also notice that all my prior entries vanished - the Pro and Basic apps don’t share the same registry settings / sign key? Seems to me good idea they should. In addition, the Basic version does not show the annoying apology popup.
“EnTerr” wrote:
So @ioan - i notice the channel got updated from (wrong) Pro to Basic version - is this the new version or they just corrected the prior mistake?I also notice that all my prior entries vanished - the Pro and Basic apps don’t share the same registry settings / sign key? Seems to me good idea they should. In addition, the Basic version does not show the annoying apology popup.
The new versions include all the fixes, I submitted them on Sunday night.
The pro and basic doesn’t share the registry, but they share the keyIt’s on my to-do for the channels to share the registry, but I can’t push a version yet, the roku testing team told me to not send more than an update a month… so I’ll have to wait before I submit another update.
Not to send more than one update per month? That is odd. Your pro version generates money for Roku right? I would think if you had added a feature to improve the product Roku would want that feature accessible ASAP to your users - thus providing more value to the product and increasing sales. Did they say why they don’t want more revenue? If it’s a free channel then they just don’t want to do the extra work reviewing it as there is no incentive (aside from PR) to carry the channel.
“destruk” wrote:
Not to send more than one update per month? That is odd. Your pro version generates money for Roku right? I would think if you had added a feature to improve the product Roku would want that feature accessible ASAP to your users - thus providing more value to the product and increasing sales. Did they say why they don’t want more revenue? If it’s a free channel then they just don’t want to do the extra work reviewing it as there is no incentive (aside from PR) to carry the channel.
Yeah, I agree…
I asked “is there a limit on how often I can send updates to my channel”? Here is what I got yesterday (I deleted the name to not get someone in trouble):
Hi Ioan,
Thank you for your submissions. I have approved them for you since there was an accident in switching that channels. They should be the correct now.
Regarding the question with the bug fixes, we suggest that you submit a new version once a month with all the fixes for that month.
Hope this helps!
Thank you,
“EnTerr” wrote:
I also notice that all my prior entries vanished - the Pro and Basic apps don’t share the same registry settings / sign key? Seems to me good idea they should. In addition, the Basic version does not show the annoying apology popup.
This is fixed now, it will be in next month’s update!
Regarding the question with the bug fixes, we suggest that you submit a new version once a month with all the fixes for that month.
“Suggest” is not exactly a mandate. It makes general sense not to spam them with new version every day. But regardless how you read it, in case there is emergency bugfix, feel free to submit and stress the reason for doing it
