[nas] Writing Win9X NAS Server

[Jon Trulson]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Michel Bardiaux wrote:

> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:04:14 +0200
> From: Michel Bardiaux <mbardiaux at peaktime.be>
> To: jon at radscan.com, nas at radscan.com
> Subject: Re: [nas] Writing Win9X NAS Server
> 
> Jon Trulson wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > With Cygnus porting XFree4 to WinXX, wouldn't it be better to consider a
> > > 'straight' port of NAS to WinXX, and maybe an integration of NAS *in*
> > > XFree? Multiple implementation trees are not necessarily a bad thing -
> > > when a protocol is an RFC or even a de facto standard. But a the stage
> > > NAS is now, IMHO multiple implementations would be a problem. The
> > > license is certainly not so restrictive that a rewrite from scratch
> > > might be needed!
> > >
> > 
> >         Well a straight port of the NAS server to windows is probably the
> > best way to do it, but I don't see how trying to stick it in the Xfree
> > tree would do anything useful.  I suspect they are not interested in doing
> > the port to winxx for us ;-)
> 
> On the features side: I think it is very important that time be
> synchronized between audio and graphics streams, and that requires
> cooperation between X and NAS.
> 

	Yes... probably need to set NAS up so it can use the XSYNC
extension.

> On the implementation side: one would make the economy of duplicating
> all the 'logistic' work already done for XFree4 (HOWTO install cygnus,
> HOWTO build the server, install it, etc)
> 
> It is probably too soon to try and push NAS as 'the' or even 'the best'
> standard for network audio; but it is a chicken-and-egg case: lack of
> acceptance because lack of a server on one important platform! But the
> integration could be done as an X-Extension (and I mean on all
> platforms! After all, if XFree can cope with umpteen different graphics
> boards, sound should not be much more difficult!)


	Well, I like NAS because it doesn't depend on the
platform.  Or the Xserver (if you even have one running).  Other
sound servers are out there, but none of them will run on my unixware,
linux, and HPUX machines all at the same time.  That's why I dig NAS -
it's platform/OS independent, and it works well.  

> > 
> >         If the Xfree server and X11 environment could be ported to winxx,
> 
> According to http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/xfree/ it has *already*
> been done.
> 

	Well, then that makes the job quite a bit easier I would think.  
Has anybody tried it?  Does it work well?  I notice the libs and
environment are supposedly there.  This framework should greatly aid a
port of a NAS server to windows.

> > then I think a straight NAS port would be made alot easier, since much of
> > the code dealing with network setup and teardown would have to be done for
> > the xf server as well, and you would then have a psuedo-guide to NAS...
> > I have 0 windows programming experience so I have no idea what the real
> > effort of a port would entail.
> 
> My point is: one could start on Linux rather; make NAS an X extension on
> a *non-WIN* platform (so no problems with the lack of Windows
> experience). *Then* in the context of cygwin XFree, the port to Windows
> would only :-) involve finding the right Win32 APIs to call (there are
> so many, it is very likely there are some that match well what NAS
> needs). I think this road offers better hope than trying independently
> from Cygwin and X to bend the architecture of the NAS server into
> something suitable for Windows.


	I don't think the architecture would need to get bent ;-) If there
is a good compiler (gcc) and decent X11 environment, and the appropriate
sound interface (DirectX ?) the job is doable.

	Also, a couple of issues here.  First, I don't use Xfree.  I use
Accelerated-X on my linux/unixware platforms.  The HP uses it's own server
(unfortunately).  Second, on both one box at home, and one here in the
office, the box running the NAS server doesn't use X at all.  It doesn't
even have a montior hooked up to it. Just a keyboard, net interface and
speakers.  Tying NAS into X is not a good idea IMHO.  Having NAS *work*
with X (like using XSYNC) would be good though.  What about Sun people. HP
people?  Me running my 3D accelx at home?  Do we require them to use
XF now?  No, I do not want NAS to be tied to an Xserver implementation.  
That seems self defeating to me.  Do one thing, do it well.

	I like the fact that provided you have the sound hardware, you can
run it on a variety of machines and machine architectures.  You only need
an X environment to build it, you do not need it to run.  And while I'm
all for increasing the visibility and use of NAS, binding it to XF as an
extension is certainly not the way to do it. IMO of course.


> You talk like a Ferengi.
> 
> I *know* what that means! NuqNEH!
> 

	;-)

-- 
Jon Trulson    work: mailto:jon at xig.com, home: mailto:jon at radscan.com
Xi Graphics, Inc.  http://www.xig.com
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt
#include <stddisclaimer.h>
You talk like a Ferengi.