in7y118 at public.uni-hamburg.de
Mon Oct 27 05:27:05 CET 2003
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Karl Schmitz wrote:
> I read about the Network-Integrated Multimedia Middleware (NMM) and the Multimedia-Box in the german journal c't (issue 22), see www.networkmultimedia.org
Oh cool, I'll read that when I get my hands on that c't. Thanks for
pointing it out.
> >From the NMM-FAQ :
> "The Network-Integrated Multimedia Middleware (NMM) provides an architecture that allows to create distributed multimedia application easily: local and remote multimedia devices or software components can be controlled transparently and integrated into a common multimedia processing flow graph. NMM runs under Linux, is implemented in C++, and distributed under the LGPL. "
> >From this statement, I think NMM and gstreamer share similar goals, although NMM seems to have some advantages:
> * It is "network-integrated" : you can transparently distribute your multimedia applications in the network
> * As you just started to develop some "Interfaces": NMM already has defined more than 100 interfaces.
> * It has this wonderful application called Multimedia-Box, something like a networked home-entertainment PC with CD, DVD, TV, transcoding, under a nice GUI, see http://www.networkmultimedia.org/NMM/Status/MMBox/index.html
> * For those of you, who prefer object-oriented programming: it is implemented in C++
> Now I was wondering what you gstreamer guys think about NMM ? Why should I develop for gstreamer and not NMM ?
Marketing question detected. ;)
You should obviously develop for whatever suits your needs better.
I looked at NMM the last week because someone pointed it out to me, but I
have no idea where the differences between our architecture and theirs are
(apart from programming language). It looked to me like GStreamer was
quite a bit more generic.
And I'm missing a real life application where people are using it
successfully and not just some nice screenies.
It'd be nice if someone did a comparison though.
More information about the gstreamer-devel