Bug 773 - Split service ports for webserver and streaming music
: Split service ports for webserver and streaming music
Status: NEW
Product: Logitech Media Server
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Audio
: unspecified
: PC Windows XP
: -- enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
: Future
Assigned To: Unassigned bug - please assign me!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-01-08 16:41 UTC by jkouns
Modified: 2011-11-06 23:24 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Category: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description jkouns 2005-01-08 16:41:10 UTC
Basically.... right now if I want to listen to my streaming music over the
Internet (or give out to friends to listen to what I am streaming).... it has to
run on the same port that my webserver listens for me to configure playlists,
etc...... bad.

I would love to see two seperate fields making it possible for me to choose
which ports listen for each of the service individually...

Example:  stream media over 80 (only allow that port to reach the stream.mp3 or
whatever you can implement) but the webserver for music management only listens
on 8080

-Both fields should be user defined and unrestricted.
-Awareness information about security issues would be helpful when selecting ports.
Comment 1 Blackketter Dean 2005-01-10 12:32:07 UTC
I'm not quite following you on this.  What situation requires the ports to be different?  Do you want to 
stream to some but disallow access to the web interface?  Or is it the other way around?  Or am I 
missing it altogether?
Comment 2 jkouns 2005-01-10 15:52:46 UTC
Sorry for the confusion... You had it right the first time.  I really want to be
able to stream music for people, but not give them access to the web interface.

I want to be able to tell friends to connect to http://10.1.1.1/stream.mp3 to
listen to what I am streaming but give them no control over what they want to
listen to using the interface....

I can't find a default player setting to provide this... I would want it so each
person that connects to me gets the default playlist right away, unless I give
them access (re: multiple account bug that is already submitted)

Hope this helps clarify.  Thanks!
Comment 3 KDF 2005-01-11 02:12:12 UTC
if I'm understanding this correctly, I think it is important to note that each
player as it connects is given its own client id with its own blank playlist (or
its previous playlist if it has one from before).  you'd have to add a playlist
to each new client and start playback from the web interface for them. 
Slimserver does not provide a single stream to multiple clients.
Comment 4 jkouns 2005-01-11 20:09:00 UTC
I think you hit it right there.  I guess my true request is to allow one stream
for many unknown clients.  The ability to create a playlist that could allow any
IP to connect to and listen to a defined playlist, with or without
authentication. They would only be able to listen, no controls over the playlist.

Justification.  To be able to provide a link on a personal website that says,
click here to stream what I am listening to these days.  I think this would be a
huge advancement for the software and increase the usage big time.  I believe
people would love and drool over the fact that they could site up their own
mini-radio stations for friends, etc, but still having all of the other features
of the software!  

Loads of ways that this could be implemented and hopefully could be pretty easy?
I would love to be able to create a default player with playlist for anyone that
connects to stream2.mp3.... this way it wouldn't affect all the other
functionality that everyone loves.  But just expand to be able to allow random
people to listen in easily without configuration and being able to force them to
listen to a defined playlist!

Definitely high on my list! =)

What do you think?  Thanks for reading and being open to feedback.  I am very
pleased with my Squeezebox but would be able to recommend it much easier if
people could stream to many people such as poorly described above.
Comment 5 Blackketter Dean 2005-01-12 10:19:59 UTC
 This is a good idea.  The way to do this is to allow a second port to be open for streaming-only 
connections.
Comment 6 Blackketter Dean 2005-06-07 12:38:07 UTC
Marking items that aren't going to be addressed immediately in 6.1 as future.  Please update if this is in 
error or the bug has already been addressed.
Comment 7 jkouns 2005-10-22 10:06:52 UTC
Has not be addressed yet.  Still have my fingers crossed that this will get
bumped up soon!  Thanks!
Comment 8 jkouns 2006-09-01 20:07:46 UTC
Any idea when we might be able to get this in a release? =)
Thanks!
Comment 9 jkouns 2007-06-02 10:36:25 UTC
keep alive! =)
Comment 10 Chris Owens 2010-05-06 15:54:25 UTC
Dean doesn't work here any more :)
Comment 11 Alan Young 2011-11-06 23:24:15 UTC
Unassigned bugs cannot have a priority.