[Totem] Browser plugin gstreamer

[Mark Trompell-2]

Hi,
I didn't have a deep look into the code yet, I just wonder how much a
browser plugin needs to depend on totem.
Would it make sense to have a more generic gstreamer browser plugin,
so there is no need for all gstreamer applications to write their own?

Mark

P.S. I'm not subscribed, so please cc me.
_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 09:39 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
> Hi,
> I didn't have a deep look into the code yet, I just wonder how much a
> browser plugin needs to depend on totem.
> Would it make sense to have a more generic gstreamer browser plugin,
> so there is no need for all gstreamer applications to write their own?

Which GStreamer applications would need to write their own browser
plugin? I'm counting none, which would make the point moot.

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Mark Trompell-2]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 09:39 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I didn't have a deep look into the code yet, I just wonder how much a
>> browser plugin needs to depend on totem.
>> Would it make sense to have a more generic gstreamer browser plugin,
>> so there is no need for all gstreamer applications to write their own?
>
> Which GStreamer applications would need to write their own browser
> plugin? I'm counting none, which would make the point moot.

That's the point, totem comes with a browser plugin to play embedded
videofiles and stuff,
but it pulls in a lot of totem. My point is why not have an
application independent plugin.

--
Mark Trompell

Foresight Linux Xfce Edition
Cause your desktop should be freaking cool
(and Xfce)
_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 07:32 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 09:39 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I didn't have a deep look into the code yet, I just wonder how much a
> >> browser plugin needs to depend on totem.
> >> Would it make sense to have a more generic gstreamer browser plugin,
> >> so there is no need for all gstreamer applications to write their own?
> >
> > Which GStreamer applications would need to write their own browser
> > plugin? I'm counting none, which would make the point moot.
>
> That's the point, totem comes with a browser plugin to play embedded
> videofiles and stuff,
> but it pulls in a lot of totem. My point is why not have an
> application independent plugin.

Because there would be a lot of duplicated code between the two
otherwise.

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Felipe Contreras]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Mark Trompell <mark@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 09:39 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I didn't have a deep look into the code yet, I just wonder how much a
>>> browser plugin needs to depend on totem.
>>> Would it make sense to have a more generic gstreamer browser plugin,
>>> so there is no need for all gstreamer applications to write their own?
>>
>> Which GStreamer applications would need to write their own browser
>> plugin? I'm counting none, which would make the point moot.
>
> That's the point, totem comes with a browser plugin to play embedded
> videofiles and stuff,
> but it pulls in a lot of totem. My point is why not have an
> application independent plugin.

I developed an example plugin that uses GStreamer directly. I don't
think most of the stuff in totem is really required in a plugin, but
on the other side my plugin is not that complete either.

Would it make sense to provide this code?

--
Felipe Contreras
_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 14:17 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Mark Trompell <mark@...> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 09:39 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I didn't have a deep look into the code yet, I just wonder how much a
> >>> browser plugin needs to depend on totem.
> >>> Would it make sense to have a more generic gstreamer browser plugin,
> >>> so there is no need for all gstreamer applications to write their own?
> >>
> >> Which GStreamer applications would need to write their own browser
> >> plugin? I'm counting none, which would make the point moot.
> >
> > That's the point, totem comes with a browser plugin to play embedded
> > videofiles and stuff,
> > but it pulls in a lot of totem. My point is why not have an
> > application independent plugin.
>
> I developed an example plugin that uses GStreamer directly. I don't
> think most of the stuff in totem is really required in a plugin, but
> on the other side my plugin is not that complete either.
>
> Would it make sense to provide this code?

Feel free. And when you've implemented versions to support all 4 most
popular plugins, added playlist support, fullscreen, etc, let me know
how much smaller your plugin is ;)

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Mark Trompell-2]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 14:17 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Mark Trompell <mark@...> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 09:39 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>> I didn't have a deep look into the code yet, I just wonder how much a
>> >>> browser plugin needs to depend on totem.
>> >>> Would it make sense to have a more generic gstreamer browser plugin,
>> >>> so there is no need for all gstreamer applications to write their own?
>> >>
>> >> Which GStreamer applications would need to write their own browser
>> >> plugin? I'm counting none, which would make the point moot.
>> >
>> > That's the point, totem comes with a browser plugin to play embedded
>> > videofiles and stuff,
>> > but it pulls in a lot of totem. My point is why not have an
>> > application independent plugin.
>>
>> I developed an example plugin that uses GStreamer directly. I don't
>> think most of the stuff in totem is really required in a plugin, but
>> on the other side my plugin is not that complete either.
>>
>> Would it make sense to provide this code?
>
> Feel free. And when you've implemented versions to support all 4 most
> popular plugins, added playlist support, fullscreen, etc, let me know
> how much smaller your plugin is ;)

It might be still smaller than totem plugin + totem + nautilus + libgnome + ..
whatever totem pulls in as dependency.

--
Mark Trompell

Foresight Linux Xfce Edition
Cause your desktop should be freaking cool
(and Xfce)
_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 14:49 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
<snip>
> > Feel free. And when you've implemented versions to support all 4 most
> > popular plugins, added playlist support, fullscreen, etc, let me know
> > how much smaller your plugin is ;)
>
> It might be still smaller than totem plugin + totem + nautilus + libgnome + ..
> whatever totem pulls in as dependency.

libnautilus-extension isn't a hard dependency, neither is libgnomeui.
Check the output of configure.

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Felipe Contreras]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 14:17 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Mark Trompell <mark@...> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 09:39 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>> I didn't have a deep look into the code yet, I just wonder how much a
>> >>> browser plugin needs to depend on totem.
>> >>> Would it make sense to have a more generic gstreamer browser plugin,
>> >>> so there is no need for all gstreamer applications to write their own?
>> >>
>> >> Which GStreamer applications would need to write their own browser
>> >> plugin? I'm counting none, which would make the point moot.
>> >
>> > That's the point, totem comes with a browser plugin to play embedded
>> > videofiles and stuff,
>> > but it pulls in a lot of totem. My point is why not have an
>> > application independent plugin.
>>
>> I developed an example plugin that uses GStreamer directly. I don't
>> think most of the stuff in totem is really required in a plugin, but
>> on the other side my plugin is not that complete either.
>>
>> Would it make sense to provide this code?
>
> Feel free. And when you've implemented versions to support all 4 most
> popular plugins, added playlist support, fullscreen, etc, let me know
> how much smaller your plugin is ;)

4 most popular plugins? It's implemented using NPAPI [1], so in theory
should be supported by: Mozilla Application Suite, Mozilla Firefox,
Safari, Opera, Konqueror and some versions of Microsoft Internet
Explorer.

Is playlist support a must-have feature? If so, probably should be
handled by a GStreamer element. Fullscreen support should not be that
difficult, but I leave that to somebody else.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI

--
Felipe Contreras
_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:16 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
<snip>
> 4 most popular plugins? It's implemented using NPAPI [1]

I wrote a web browser plugin already, I know what NPAPI is ;)

> , so in theory
> should be supported by: Mozilla Application Suite, Mozilla Firefox,
> Safari, Opera, Konqueror and some versions of Microsoft Internet
> Explorer.

That's not what I meant. You'll need to support Real Player, Windows
Media Player, QuickTime and VLC nowadays. Our support for the first one
is really sketchy, but the other 3 are complete enough to work with a
majority of websites.

> Is playlist support a must-have feature? If so, probably should be
> handled by a GStreamer element. Fullscreen support should not be that
> difficult, but I leave that to somebody else.

Yes, it's a must-have.

FWIW, you can probably have a complete web browser plugin in not much
space by packaging it properly in a sub-package.

$(libdir)/mozilla/plugins/*
$(libexecdir)/totem-plugin-viewer
$(libdir)/libbaconvideowidget.so.0.0.0 (shared with Totem itself)
$(pkgdatadir)/mozilla-viewer.ui
$(pkgdatadir)/fullscreen.ui (shared with Totem itself)

That comes in under a meg stripped...

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Felipe Contreras]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:16 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> <snip>
>> 4 most popular plugins? It's implemented using NPAPI [1]
>
> I wrote a web browser plugin already, I know what NPAPI is ;)

I didn't recall you wrote it. In any case it helps for reference.

>> , so in theory
>> should be supported by: Mozilla Application Suite, Mozilla Firefox,
>> Safari, Opera, Konqueror and some versions of Microsoft Internet
>> Explorer.
>
> That's not what I meant. You'll need to support Real Player, Windows
> Media Player, QuickTime and VLC nowadays. Our support for the first one
> is really sketchy, but the other 3 are complete enough to work with a
> majority of websites.

Ah, now I see what you mean: plugin emulation? I never use that, so I
forgot about it.

>> Is playlist support a must-have feature? If so, probably should be
>> handled by a GStreamer element. Fullscreen support should not be that
>> difficult, but I leave that to somebody else.
>
> Yes, it's a must-have.

If you are trying to emulate other plugins then yes, I see how that
could be required.

> FWIW, you can probably have a complete web browser plugin in not much
> space by packaging it properly in a sub-package.
>
> $(libdir)/mozilla/plugins/*
> $(libexecdir)/totem-plugin-viewer

This is one of the things I didn't like when I analyzed the totem
plugin: why require an external process?

> $(libdir)/libbaconvideowidget.so.0.0.0 (shared with Totem itself)
> $(pkgdatadir)/mozilla-viewer.ui
> $(pkgdatadir)/fullscreen.ui (shared with Totem itself)
>
> That comes in under a meg stripped...

I guess it depends on what is required.

Best regards.

--
Felipe Contreras
_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:46 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
<snip>
> >> Is playlist support a must-have feature? If so, probably should be
> >> handled by a GStreamer element. Fullscreen support should not be that
> >> difficult, but I leave that to somebody else.
> >
> > Yes, it's a must-have.
>
> If you are trying to emulate other plugins then yes, I see how that
> could be required.

Even a plugin that doesn't try to support the APIs of those foreign
plugins will certainly need playlist support to be competitive...

> > FWIW, you can probably have a complete web browser plugin in not much
> > space by packaging it properly in a sub-package.
> >
> > $(libdir)/mozilla/plugins/*
> > $(libexecdir)/totem-plugin-viewer
>
> This is one of the things I didn't like when I analyzed the totem
> plugin: why require an external process?

Because video decoders are rubbish, and you don't want to do video
decoding in the same space as the web browser. A crafted video playing
inside the web browser could make it send your whole password wallet to
some website. With a separate program, it will just crash :)

> > $(libdir)/libbaconvideowidget.so.0.0.0 (shared with Totem itself)
> > $(pkgdatadir)/mozilla-viewer.ui
> > $(pkgdatadir)/fullscreen.ui (shared with Totem itself)
> >
> > That comes in under a meg stripped...
>
> I guess it depends on what is required.

Can certainly be smaller if you remove some of the compatibility
plugins.

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[milosz derezynski]

I'd even propose (cautiously obviously and only hypothetically, i don't want to step on anyone's toes :P) factoring out the core video playback engine of Totem out into a separate library, so that we have a generic reusable video player component in the GNOME stack, with a minimal set of dependencies, and then base the browser plugin and Totem on it.

2008/8/19 Bastien Nocera <hadess@...>

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:46 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
<snip>

> >> Is playlist support a must-have feature? If so, probably should be
> >> handled by a GStreamer element. Fullscreen support should not be that
> >> difficult, but I leave that to somebody else.
> >
> > Yes, it's a must-have.
>
> If you are trying to emulate other plugins then yes, I see how that
> could be required.

Even a plugin that doesn't try to support the APIs of those foreign
plugins will certainly need playlist support to be competitive...

> > FWIW, you can probably have a complete web browser plugin in not much
> > space by packaging it properly in a sub-package.
> >
> > $(libdir)/mozilla/plugins/*
> > $(libexecdir)/totem-plugin-viewer
>
> This is one of the things I didn't like when I analyzed the totem
> plugin: why require an external process?

Because video decoders are rubbish, and you don't want to do video
decoding in the same space as the web browser. A crafted video playing
inside the web browser could make it send your whole password wallet to
some website. With a separate program, it will just crash :)

> > $(libdir)/libbaconvideowidget.so.0.0.0 (shared with Totem itself)
> > $(pkgdatadir)/mozilla-viewer.ui
> > $(pkgdatadir)/fullscreen.ui (shared with Totem itself)
> >
> > That comes in under a meg stripped...
>
> I guess it depends on what is required.

Can certainly be smaller if you remove some of the compatibility
plugins.

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

--
Please note that according to the German law on data retention,
information on every electronic information exchange with me is
retained for a period of six months.
[Bitte beachten Sie, dass dem Gesetz zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung zufolge
jeder elektronische Kontakt mit mir sechs Monate lang gespeichert wird.]

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 17:50 +0200, Milosz Derezynski wrote:
> I'd even propose (cautiously obviously and only hypothetically, i
> don't want to step on anyone's toes :P) factoring out the core video
> playback engine of Totem out into a separate library, so that we have
> a generic reusable video player component in the GNOME stack, with a
> minimal set of dependencies, and then base the browser plugin and
> Totem on it.

The API is far too ad-hoc to be used elsewhere, to be honest. It should
become less and less useful as GStreamer gains features the xine-lib
backend had, and we start migration towards playbin2.

Cheers

PS: Please avoid top-posting.

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 13:51 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 14:49 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Feel free. And when you've implemented versions to support all 4 most
> > > popular plugins, added playlist support, fullscreen, etc, let me know
> > > how much smaller your plugin is ;)
> >
> > It might be still smaller than totem plugin + totem + nautilus + libgnome + ..
> > whatever totem pulls in as dependency.
>
> libnautilus-extension isn't a hard dependency, neither is libgnomeui.
> Check the output of configure.

However, in effect it is for most people (except Gentoo users...), as
distributions are always going to build it with these options enabled.

The split suggested by Milosz later in the thread would probably help to
address this...
--
adamw

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 09:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 13:51 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 14:49 +0200, Mark Trompell wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > Feel free. And when you've implemented versions to support all 4 most
> > > > popular plugins, added playlist support, fullscreen, etc, let me know
> > > > how much smaller your plugin is ;)
> > >
> > > It might be still smaller than totem plugin + totem + nautilus + libgnome + ..
> > > whatever totem pulls in as dependency.
> >
> > libnautilus-extension isn't a hard dependency, neither is libgnomeui.
> > Check the output of configure.
>
> However, in effect it is for most people (except Gentoo users...), as
> distributions are always going to build it with these options enabled.

Yes, and then we use sub-packages. The only thing most distributions
still depend on is libgnomeui. We only need session management in GTK+
to be able to remove that dependency.

Totem on the OLPC only depends on GTK+.

> The split suggested by Milosz later in the thread would probably help to
> address this...

And it would make working on Totem, and making releases a pain in the
neck.

_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia

[Felipe Contreras]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:46 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> <snip>
>> >> Is playlist support a must-have feature? If so, probably should be
>> >> handled by a GStreamer element. Fullscreen support should not be that
>> >> difficult, but I leave that to somebody else.
>> >
>> > Yes, it's a must-have.
>>
>> If you are trying to emulate other plugins then yes, I see how that
>> could be required.
>
> Even a plugin that doesn't try to support the APIs of those foreign
> plugins will certainly need playlist support to be competitive...

Competitive against what? I don't recall ever seeing a site embedding
a playlist. Again, if it was really important I guess GStreamer should
handle it.

>> > FWIW, you can probably have a complete web browser plugin in not much
>> > space by packaging it properly in a sub-package.
>> >
>> > $(libdir)/mozilla/plugins/*
>> > $(libexecdir)/totem-plugin-viewer
>>
>> This is one of the things I didn't like when I analyzed the totem
>> plugin: why require an external process?
>
> Because video decoders are rubbish, and you don't want to do video
> decoding in the same space as the web browser. A crafted video playing
> inside the web browser could make it send your whole password wallet to
> some website. With a separate program, it will just crash :)

Hmm, true. It seems to be a remote possibility to me, so I'm not sure
if it's worth the trouble.

If all the code is contained in the plugin then packaging becomes very
easy: one file. Which I guess helps for plugin autoinstallation.

>> > $(libdir)/libbaconvideowidget.so.0.0.0 (shared with Totem itself)
>> > $(pkgdatadir)/mozilla-viewer.ui
>> > $(pkgdatadir)/fullscreen.ui (shared with Totem itself)
>> >
>> > That comes in under a meg stripped...
>>
>> I guess it depends on what is required.
>
> Can certainly be smaller if you remove some of the compatibility
> plugins.

I meant, if you are interested in simple playback (not emulating other
plugins) then ideally the plugin can be contained in one file.

Personally I would like to be able to install a plugin in my
"~/.mozilla/plugins" directory, and not require anything else. Adding
an application in the same directory to be run as a separate process
seems reasonable too, but adding those .ui files doesn't appeal me.

All this discussion makes me wonder about some ideas:

a) Is it possible to pack all the "compatibility plugins" into a single plugin?
b) Would it make sense to have a configuration to choose an
application other than "totem-plugin-viewer"?

Best regards.

--
Felipe Contreras
_______________________________________________
gnome-multimedia mailing list
gnome-multimedia@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-multimedia