more 2¢.. > One of the overall design goals of the proposal is to *decouple* dependencies > that had so far been interpreted into various aspects of the mediapackage, so > I would not agree that there should be a dependency between the > presentations. One may publish to an LMS and Engage, and even if those two > presentations would rely on the same Apache or Red5 serving the files, I > would not want that to be expressed in the mediapackage, because now you are > storing part of your infrastructure setup in the mediapackage which may > change at any time, resulting in invalid mediapackages. >
Would it cause problems if two types of elements are identified within a media package: a "distribution" element to represent the actual file at its distribution location, and "publication" elements that represent publishings and logical links for a user to access the media. The "publications" don't have to know about each other, but the "publication"s do know about the related "distribution" object. >> I see two ways to go: >> • We do not care about this interdependency. If we retract media from >> the streaming server, we must explicitly "unpublish" the reference(s) to >> that media, too. So this is a manual process, that will become more >> complicated as the number of available channels grows. > > Here I see a difference in the ways we are thinking. You are talking about > retracting from the streaming server. The streaming server however is not a > "presentation". It is merely a helper service to Engage, your LMS and so on. > So you would retract from Engage or the LMS, not from the streaming server. > It is then up to the infrastructure setup to keep track of how many clients > rely on a stream (for example by introducing a counter that is increased > every time a service is putting the same file here. Only if that counter is > down to zero, which is after all "presentation" have been retracted can the > file be deleted). It sounds like each time there is a retract, the mediapackage needs to be updated to remove a publication element. When the publications are all gone, the "hosting provider" can delete the distribution element. Then how is the "hosting provider" determined? Is it the Engage server/LMS that was provided a link and protocol, or the Matterhorn Admin that copied to the the distribution location?
_______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list Matterhorn@opencastproject.org http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email matterhorn-unsubscr...@opencastproject.org _______________________________________________
