UPDATE 25.05.2006 !! Movieplayer Patch from CDH555

[PT-1]

Hi,

a UK user already provided an update for the movieplayer to prevent it from crashing when working together with VLC.

This Patch is tested with VLC 0.8.5

http://www.pt-1.net/AddOns/CDH555_Movieplayer_Patch.txt

It is based on the 1.127

[palace]

Hat sich das mal einer angeschaut?

[Zwen]

hi, kann nur kurz ein paar Bemerkungen zum Code loswerden...
Schade, dass man in UK keinen "diff" kennt, aber auf einer Insel muss das ja so kommen ;-)
Entscheidend ist wohl nur dieser Teil:

Code: Alles auswählen

std::string emptyurl = baseurl;
emptyurl += "?control=empty";
httpres = sendGetRequest(emptyurl, response, false);

Damit wird wohl die Playlist gelöscht...
Der Rest ist IMHO ein Versuch etwas Speicher zu sparen, indem die Temp-Datei /tmp/tmpts gelöscht wird, leider geht gerade dabei unumgänglich Speicher verloren (zumindest solange neutrino läuft) -> fopen ohne fclose...
Warum alle Aktionen über system() Aufrufe realisiert sind und nicht über die c-api ist mir auch schleierhaft.
Also ich denke wer Lust und Zeit hat könnte den obigen Teil mal testen, den Rest würde ich erstmal verwerfen...

[PT-1]

Don't shoot the messenger ...

Ich gebe ja nur die Info weiter und wenn es dem Movieplayer hilft dann ist das doch fuer alle gut....

[Zwen]

actually I was not aiming at the messanger, sorry if I missed ;-)
Ein bischen kritik wird aber doch wohl erlaubt sein (zumal sie meiner Meinung nach konstruktiv ist)

Fazit: 3 Zeilen zu testen, Freiwillige ?

[Papst]

Hab ich getestet. Der Fehler, dass nach Auswahl eines neuen Files trotzdem nochmal das Alte abgespielt wird, scheint behoben zu sein.
Was leider schon ewig nicht funktioniert ist VLC auf Pause (Gelbe Taste) zu setzen.
Wo wir schonmal dabei sind fänd ich auch gut wenn man, wie im TS-Abspielen, nach Filmende wieder in den Filebrowser kommt und nicht sofort wieder zum Fernsehbild.

[Zwen]

dann check ich es mal ein...

[PT-1]

wegen dem fopen ohne fclose werde ich mich mal mit cdh555 absprechen.

Eventuell hat er da ja noch ideen bzw. moechte er vielleichts selbst in die diskussion einsteigen. War ja seine arbeit, nicht meine...

[Tommy]

wegen dem fopen ohne fclose werde ich mich mal mit cdh555 absprechen.

Eventuell hat er da ja noch ideen bzw. moechte er vielleichts selbst in die diskussion einsteigen. War ja seine arbeit, nicht meine...

Warum postet er nicht einfach selbst? Ich glaub die meisten verstehen doch englisch. Ich weis nicht ob Die Made was gegen englische Beiträge in "non Foreign Guests Forum" Threads hat?!

[Zwen]

soll einfach statt dem fopen, system("rm...") ein
unlink("/tmp/tmpts") machen...
Wenn das File nicht existiert, wird auch nichts gelöscht, die prüfung auf File-Existenz ist IMHO überflüssig. Wozu der sleep 1 dient ???
Zwen

[PT-1]

Habe Ihm gemailt und warte ab ob er antwortet

[cdh555]

Hello.

First PT-1 has told me the first three line mod has now been accepted, thanks!

As for the other chunk.
First one posted as Org line 383 in (see first post).

Now I've been told you do not like the fopen without a close. Fair point, I did it this way as at the time it was the only way I could check to see if a file existed and then delete it if it did. The "sleep 1" is there purely to ensure the action is without a problem and can be removed if you are sure it can perform without it.

I have come up with the following as my new change add the following line to the existing code change, as a new line right at the end.

Code: Alles auswählen

fclose(check1);

Sorry I can't post it properly but the forum will not let me post proper lines of code within the tags.

This closes the file and so should be a lot better. It's a case of repeating it for the second change (Org line 1139 in the first post).

Now the reason for performing the check twice is to actually ensure the file gets deleted once movieplayer is . I've had it once not delete but with both of these in place it is always removed.

That's it.
Any questions please ask and if I can anser I will.

[PT-1]

@Die Made

is there a special reason that we can't post code in the Developer section...

Anythning more than 3 lines and you get a database error

[DieMade]

It's not "more than 3 lines", it's "bad code that *may* contain SQL/php/whatever injection" that gets rejected by the server.

Sorry for that, but phpBB and php are too insecure sometimes

[PT-1]

The wierd thing is in the Feature request people are posting lines and lines of code but the Movieplayer stuff in here get's rejected....

I hope Zwen understands what CDH555 was on about ;-)

[DieMade]

Sorry for that, but I'm not willing to change this (very basic) security feature. Some code gets rejected while others doesn't - thats the filter's decision, not mine.

Just use some pastesides for this and link to that paste - makes the database smaller too

[PT-1]

No Problem Cheffe ;-)

[Zwen]

@cdh555:
Why not just call

Code: Alles auswählen

unlink("/tmp/tmpts");

It doesn't really matter wether the file exists or not, if you just ignore the return code from unlink...

[Zwen]

The wierd thing is in the Feature request people are posting lines and lines of code but the Movieplayer stuff in here get's rejected....

No-one is rejecting anything here. It just me not checking in things I don't know what they're supposed to do and which are obviously errornous and no well programmed.
It's always the the same discussion. People complain about code not being checked in. My opinion is that if nobody cares about code quality the system wouldn't be able to be handle and to be extended anymore within a year. I have seen this happen many times.
Too bad thegoodguy quit his job as the tuxbox cleaning woman ;-)

[Tommy]

@Zwen:
I think the comment was related to the Boardsoft and posting codefragments here - not related to the CVS

[PT-1]

Sorry,

what I meant to explain was that for example in the Feature Request Section MBxxx posted some lines of code (about 10) for the Infoviewer/logoviewer and these Lines are fine.

The Forum Software rejects the code I / CDH555 tried to post ;-)

This was just me not understanding the Filter Gurgel then explained in his post

Nothing negative about you guys not just randomly checking in any old piece of code

You guys keep the good work up and it is nice to see that even after a few people declared the Dbox as dead it's still around and kicking ar$e ;-)

[PT-1]

@Tommy

you beat me to it ;-)

[Zwen]

oops, of course, how stupid

[cdh555]

@Zwen

@cdh555:
Why not just call

Code: Alles auswählen

unlink("/tmp/tmpts");

It doesn't really matter wether the file exists or not, if you just ignore the return code from unlink...

I didn't know that way of doing it. I just did it the way I knew.
If that will delete the file if it exists then by all means change my 5 or 6 lines of code to your suggested single line. Then at least the file will be deleted at those points when checked and everything will be good
Unfortunately I can't compile it or check beyond what I have.

Thanks for pointing out an easier way of doing it.

[Carjay]

I didn't know that way of doing it. I just did it the way I knew.

You should take a look at:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/
and spend some time getting to know the possibilities of the GNU libc.

system() is always a bad idea because it basically starts a new process (a new shell) which takes ages to do and because it's a separate process it invites all sorts of race conditions (I guess the "Sleep" you felt necessary to use is a consequence of that).