Mailing List Archive

Mythweb versus Webfrontend
These two projects aim to implement pretty much the same functionality,
correct? I realize one is more mature than the other and so may currently
be more featureful. But the other should be just as feature-complete at
some point, correct?

I also understand that one (Mythweb) relies on a web server being
installed and perhaps some related software like php, but that the other
(Webfrontend) does not have those additional dependencies, correct?

I've still got Mythweb installed here along with its additional
dependencies but am considering getting rid of it and its dependencies if
Webfrontend has all functionality I will need. Advice/input will be
appreciated.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
> On Mar 31, 2020, at 8:38 PM, James Miller <gajs-f0el@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
> These two projects aim to implement pretty much the same functionality, correct? I realize one is more mature than the other and so may currently be more featureful. But the other should be just as feature-complete at some point, correct?
>
> I also understand that one (Mythweb) relies on a web server being installed and perhaps some related software like php, but that the other (Webfrontend) does not have those additional dependencies, correct?
>
> I've still got Mythweb installed here along with its additional dependencies but am considering getting rid of it and its dependencies if Webfrontend has all functionality I will need. Advice/input will be appreciated.

Unfortunately, neither Mythweb or Webfrontend is getting a lot of attention these days. Webfrontend was started more than 6 years ago. Even at that time, Mythweb had such serious technical issues that it warranted scrapping.

https://code.mythtv.org/trac/ticket/11938

There are some other frontend projects: Leanfront and Android front ends come to mind.

https://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Android_TV_Leanback_Frontend
https://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Android

On iOS, there is Glorious MythTV:

https://forum.mythtv.org/viewtopic.php?t=3134

AIUI, none of the alternate frontends come close to providing all the functionality of the native Myth front end. It is a _lot_ of work to build a front end—let alone extend the backend API that makes these alternate front ends possible.

You can mix and match pretty much any combination you want.

Craig

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
On 4/1/20, Craig Treleaven <ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> Unfortunately, neither Mythweb or Webfrontend is getting a lot of attention
> these days. Webfrontend was started more than 6 years ago. Even at that
> time, Mythweb had such serious technical issues that it warranted scrapping.

That seems a little extreme. While I know it's not actively maintained
and I'm sure there are things in mythweb that don't work correctly, I
can say for sure that everything I use it for has worked perfectly
going in 14 years.

Tom
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
Tom Dexter wrote on 2/4/20 7:23 am:
> On 4/1/20, Craig Treleaven <ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, neither Mythweb or Webfrontend is getting a lot of attention
>> these days. Webfrontend was started more than 6 years ago. Even at that
>> time, Mythweb had such serious technical issues that it warranted scrapping.
> That seems a little extreme. While I know it's not actively maintained
> and I'm sure there are things in mythweb that don't work correctly, I
> can say for sure that everything I use it for has worked perfectly
> going in 14 years.
>
> Tom

Agreed; for me, MythWeb has been very useful (I'm up to MythTV 0.28). So
I think we definitely need something with similar functionality.

--
Bob Long
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 5:58 PM Bob Long, <bob@oblong.com.au> wrote:

> Tom Dexter wrote on 2/4/20 7:23 am:
>
> On 4/1/20, Craig Treleaven <ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> <ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, neither Mythweb or Webfrontend is getting a lot of attention
> these days. Webfrontend was started more than 6 years ago. Even at that
> time, Mythweb had such serious technical issues that it warranted scrapping.
>
> That seems a little extreme. While I know it's not actively maintained
> and I'm sure there are things in mythweb that don't work correctly, I
> can say for sure that everything I use it for has worked perfectly
> going in 14 years.
>
> Tom
>
> Agreed; for me, MythWeb has been very useful (I'm up to MythTV 0.28). So I
> think we definitely need something with similar functionality.
>
>
My use case for Mythweb is solely for remote admin of recordings. You're in
a coffee shop (pre-self-isolation) and read on Twitter that XYZ is airing a
news special and you won't be home to set it up. Or checking on things
during a trip. I've never used the video library section or tried to play
anything. Solely admin.

>
>
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
On 4/1/20 3:13 PM, Ian Evans wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 5:58 PM Bob Long, <bob@oblong.com.au
> <mailto:bob@oblong.com.au>> wrote:
>
> Tom Dexter wrote on 2/4/20 7:23 am:
>> On 4/1/20, Craig Treleaven<ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> <mailto:ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, neither Mythweb or Webfrontend is getting a lot of attention
>>> these days. Webfrontend was started more than 6 years ago. Even at that
>>> time, Mythweb had such serious technical issues that it warranted scrapping.
>> That seems a little extreme. While I know it's not actively maintained
>> and I'm sure there are things in mythweb that don't work correctly, I
>> can say for sure that everything I use it for has worked perfectly
>> going in 14 years.
>>
>> Tom
>
> Agreed; for me, MythWeb has been very useful (I'm up to MythTV
> 0.28). So I think we definitely need something with similar
> functionality.
>
>
>
> My use case for Mythweb is solely for remote admin of recordings.
> You're in a coffee shop (pre-self-isolation) and read on Twitter that
> XYZ is airing a news special and you won't be home to set it up. Or
> checking on things during a trip. I've never used the video library
> section or tried to play anything. Solely admin.


I would estimate 90% of my use of mythweb is for scheduling and the
other is for bulk deletion.


I do all scheduling via mythweb - whether local from my computer or
remote via my phone.  I find it faster to navigate from my computer than
to do this via the frontend.   The mythtv web looks nice, but it is more
difficult to navigate the interface via the computer or phone, but I
could easily live with one solution or the other.


Michael
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 7:21 PM Michael <mythtv@blandford.net> wrote:

> On 4/1/20 3:13 PM, Ian Evans wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 5:58 PM Bob Long, <bob@oblong.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Tom Dexter wrote on 2/4/20 7:23 am:
>>
>> On 4/1/20, Craig Treleaven <ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> <ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, neither Mythweb or Webfrontend is getting a lot of attention
>> these days. Webfrontend was started more than 6 years ago. Even at that
>> time, Mythweb had such serious technical issues that it warranted scrapping.
>>
>> That seems a little extreme. While I know it's not actively maintained
>> and I'm sure there are things in mythweb that don't work correctly, I
>> can say for sure that everything I use it for has worked perfectly
>> going in 14 years.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> Agreed; for me, MythWeb has been very useful (I'm up to MythTV 0.28). So
>> I think we definitely need something with similar functionality.
>>
>>
> My use case for Mythweb is solely for remote admin of recordings. You're
> in a coffee shop (pre-self-isolation) and read on Twitter that XYZ is
> airing a news special and you won't be home to set it up. Or checking on
> things during a trip. I've never used the video library section or tried to
> play anything. Solely admin.
>
>
> I would estimate 90% of my use of mythweb is for scheduling and the other
> is for bulk deletion.
>
>
> I do all scheduling via mythweb - whether local from my computer or remote
> via my phone. I find it faster to navigate from my computer than to do
> this via the frontend. The mythtv web looks nice, but it is more
> difficult to navigate the interface via the computer or phone, but I could
> easily live with one solution or the other.
>
>
> Michael
>
Like others I use mythweb for schedule maintenance. My router/AP has
openvpn built in. So I can remotely update the schedule.

Jim A

>
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Tom Dexter <digitalaudiorock@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/1/20, Craig Treleaven <ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, neither Mythweb or Webfrontend is getting a lot of attention
>> these days. Webfrontend was started more than 6 years ago. Even at that
>> time, Mythweb had such serious technical issues that it warranted scrapping.
>
> That seems a little extreme. While I know it's not actively maintained
> and I'm sure there are things in mythweb that don't work correctly, I
> can say for sure that everything I use it for has worked perfectly
> going in 14 years.
>
I am not a developer but I’ve been packaging Myth for 6 years and used it for several years before that…

MythWeb has had only bandaid fixes for at least 7 or 8 years. AIUI, the main problems were then and are still:

-there is no dedicated MythWeb developer anymore.
-MythWeb is written in PHP. None of the currents devs are heavy PHP developers.
-MythWeb reimplements certain parts of MythTV and thus needs to be modified to keep in sync with ongoing development of MythTV. See the previous two points. In particular, MythWeb directly accesses the database. The project _really_ wants to get away from that for another set of good reasons.
-MythWeb requires Apache (or another web server) running. This is massive overkill, wastes resources, complicates the life of packagers, etc. And potentially opens gaping security holes on the user’s system.

Webfrontend was supposed to be built on a modern platform and provide a superset of the functionality of MythWeb. Unfortunately, after a promising start, it has been languishing for several years.

Personally, I don’t bother with MythWeb. Or WebFrontend. From a computer, I remote into the backend machine. From my phone, I use Glorious MythTV...when I remember it.

I think a modern, standard-compliant, front end running in a web browser would be a really good thing for Myth. In a world of phones and tablets, it seems pretty obvious. Unfortunately, the MythTV project doesn’t seem to be able to attract a developer with the skills and time to make this happen. Not sure why that is.

Craig

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
On 02/04/2020 00:57, Craig Treleaven wrote:

>
> I think a modern, standard-compliant, front end running in a web browser would be a really good thing for Myth. In a world of phones and tablets, it seems pretty obvious. Unfortunately, the MythTV project doesn’t seem to be able to attract a developer with the skills and time to make this happen. Not sure why that is.
>
I suspect that one of the reasons is that for many mythweb still works and provides a lot of the functionality required.  Yes, a technically better solution could be implemented; but it's not always reinventing the wheel what scratches an individuals itch.

If mythweb was to become incompatible with a major release, then it might create some motivation.  That said; if mythweb did disappear, we may also see people looking for alternatives to MythTV if no alternative was readily available ...

Nige.

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
>
> My use case for Mythweb is solely for remote admin of recordings. You're
> in a coffee shop (pre-self-isolation) and read on Twitter that XYZ is
> airing a news special and you won't be home to set it up. Or checking on
> things during a trip. I've never used the video library section or tried to
> play anything. Solely admin.
>

Ditto. And things like editing key bindings and jump points (or maybe
they're the same thing!)

It doesn't replace MythFrontend for me because one thing that MythFrontend
does that NO other UI does (as far as I know) is recording profiles. I have
one for movies that sets the recording group, looks up metadata and
finishes 12 minutes after the published end time (so I don't miss the end
of the film). A recording profile lets you do all this with a couple of
extra presses of the remote. Long live MythFrontend!
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
> On 1 Apr 2020, at 8:00 pm, mythtv-users-request@mythtv.org wrote:
>
> These two projects aim to implement pretty much the same functionality,
> correct? I realize one is more mature than the other and so may currently
> be more featureful. But the other should be just as feature-complete at
> some point, correct?
>
> I also understand that one (Mythweb) relies on a web server being
> installed and perhaps some related software like php, but that the other
> (Webfrontend) does not have those additional dependencies, correct?
>
> I've still got Mythweb installed here along with its additional
> dependencies but am considering getting rid of it and its dependencies if
> Webfrontend has all functionality I will need. Advice/input will be
> appreciated.

First a disclaimer: I'm the git who so rudely refered to the UI as pandering to the mobile phone set.
It is not as bad as I made out, although I still don't like it.

The webFrontend is a laudable effort and no doubt will 'get there' but is definitely 'not there yet'
It has on several ocasions trashed my DB requiring a restore.
It has on several ocasions messed up my schedule.

I run SuSE on my backend and was not able to get mythweb to work so I run a VM running ubuntu solely to host mythweb.

No-fumble setup a recording seems to always work.
It is on a fumble where you delete then add a schedule where things go awry. I have both, use both, and am careful to avoid 'here be dragons' and would be lost without mythweb.

Also IIRC Qt, webkit etc are going to affect webfrontend and how it is implimented as the exiting API is/will be depreciated.

James
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
On 4/2/20, jam@tigger.ws <jam@tigger.ws> wrote:
>
>
>> On 1 Apr 2020, at 8:00 pm, mythtv-users-request@mythtv.org wrote:
>>
>> These two projects aim to implement pretty much the same functionality,
>> correct? I realize one is more mature than the other and so may currently
>>
>> be more featureful. But the other should be just as feature-complete at
>> some point, correct?
>>
>> I also understand that one (Mythweb) relies on a web server being
>> installed and perhaps some related software like php, but that the other
>> (Webfrontend) does not have those additional dependencies, correct?
>>
>> I've still got Mythweb installed here along with its additional
>> dependencies but am considering getting rid of it and its dependencies if
>>
>> Webfrontend has all functionality I will need. Advice/input will be
>> appreciated.
>
> First a disclaimer: I'm the git who so rudely refered to the UI as pandering
> to the mobile phone set.
> It is not as bad as I made out, although I still don't like it.

This one caught my eye because there's a lot here that really made no
sense to me...see my inline replies:

>
> The webFrontend is a laudable effort and no doubt will 'get there' but is
> definitely 'not there yet'
> It has on several ocasions trashed my DB requiring a restore.
> It has on several ocasions messed up my schedule.

I have to admit, I haven't use webFrontend much and I'm not sure about
scheduling bugs, but especially when you refer to it "trashing" your
database and requiring a restore...that's wildly severe and frankly
very hard to believe, especially if it's using existing APIs. Are
there any bugs around that?

>
> I run SuSE on my backend and was not able to get mythweb to work so I run a
> VM running ubuntu solely to host mythweb.

I occasionally see people having a difficult time with mythweb and I
have a hard time figuring out why. What version of PHP was involved on
SuSE? I've never had issues with mythweb under Gentoo and currently
I'm using php 7.2. I'm not sure if mythweb has issues with 7.3 or
not(?).

>
> No-fumble setup a recording seems to always work.
> It is on a fumble where you delete then add a schedule where things go awry.
> I have both, use both, and am careful to avoid 'here be dragons' and would
> be lost without mythweb.
>
> Also IIRC Qt, webkit etc are going to affect webfrontend and how it is
> implimented as the exiting API is/will be depreciated.

You totally lost me there. QT webkit certainly has nothing whatsoever
to do with webfrontend, as webfrontend it totally browser based. In
fact I have MythTV installed using my own Gentoo ebuild where I've
done away with qtwebkit altogether and webfrontend works. What API are
you saying is deprecated, and how would that affect webfrontend?

>
> James

Tom
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
On 02/04/2020 00:57, Craig Treleaven wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Tom Dexter <digitalaudiorock@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/1/20, Craig Treleaven <ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, neither Mythweb or Webfrontend is getting a lot of attention
>>> these days. Webfrontend was started more than 6 years ago. Even at that
>>> time, Mythweb had such serious technical issues that it warranted scrapping.
>>
>> That seems a little extreme. While I know it's not actively maintained
>> and I'm sure there are things in mythweb that don't work correctly, I
>> can say for sure that everything I use it for has worked perfectly
>> going in 14 years.
>>
> I am not a developer but I’ve been packaging Myth for 6 years and used it for several years before that…
>
> MythWeb has had only bandaid fixes for at least 7 or 8 years. AIUI, the main problems were then and are still:
>
> -there is no dedicated MythWeb developer anymore.
> -MythWeb is written in PHP. None of the currents devs are heavy PHP developers.
> -MythWeb reimplements certain parts of MythTV and thus needs to be modified to keep in sync with ongoing development of MythTV. See the previous two points. In particular, MythWeb directly accesses the database. The project _really_ wants to get away from that for another set of good reasons.
> -MythWeb requires Apache (or another web server) running. This is massive overkill, wastes resources, complicates the life of packagers, etc. And potentially opens gaping security holes on the user’s system.
>
> Webfrontend was supposed to be built on a modern platform and provide a superset of the functionality of MythWeb. Unfortunately, after a promising start, it has been languishing for several years.
>
> Personally, I don’t bother with MythWeb. Or WebFrontend. From a computer, I remote into the backend machine. From my phone, I use Glorious MythTV...when I remember it.
>
> I think a modern, standard-compliant, front end running in a web browser would be a really good thing for Myth. In a world of phones and tablets, it seems pretty obvious. Unfortunately, the MythTV project doesn’t seem to be able to attract a developer with the skills and time to make this happen. Not sure why that is.
>

Initially the first place to focus is on ensuring the backend services
API is sufficiently complete as an API to drive *everything* that is
needed.

That can then be wrapped in "<insert favourite webtech here>"

Regards
Stuart
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Mythweb versus Webfrontend [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 23:55, Stuart Auchterlonie <stuarta@squashedfrog.net>
wrote:

> On 02/04/2020 00:57, Craig Treleaven wrote:
> >> On Apr 1, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Tom Dexter <digitalaudiorock@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/1/20, Craig Treleaven <ctreleaven@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> >>> Unfortunately, neither Mythweb or Webfrontend is getting a lot of
> attention
> >>> these days. Webfrontend was started more than 6 years ago. Even at
> that
> >>> time, Mythweb had such serious technical issues that it warranted
> scrapping.
> >>
> >> That seems a little extreme. While I know it's not actively maintained
> >> and I'm sure there are things in mythweb that don't work correctly, I
> >> can say for sure that everything I use it for has worked perfectly
> >> going in 14 years.
> >>
> > I am not a developer but I’ve been packaging Myth for 6 years and used
> it for several years before that…
> >
> > MythWeb has had only bandaid fixes for at least 7 or 8 years. AIUI, the
> main problems were then and are still:
> >
> > -there is no dedicated MythWeb developer anymore.
> > -MythWeb is written in PHP. None of the currents devs are heavy PHP
> developers.
> > -MythWeb reimplements certain parts of MythTV and thus needs to be
> modified to keep in sync with ongoing development of MythTV. See the
> previous two points. In particular, MythWeb directly accesses the
> database. The project _really_ wants to get away from that for another set
> of good reasons.
> > -MythWeb requires Apache (or another web server) running. This is
> massive overkill, wastes resources, complicates the life of packagers,
> etc. And potentially opens gaping security holes on the user’s system.
> >
> > Webfrontend was supposed to be built on a modern platform and provide a
> superset of the functionality of MythWeb. Unfortunately, after a promising
> start, it has been languishing for several years.
> >
> > Personally, I don’t bother with MythWeb. Or WebFrontend. From a
> computer, I remote into the backend machine. From my phone, I use Glorious
> MythTV...when I remember it.
> >
> > I think a modern, standard-compliant, front end running in a web browser
> would be a really good thing for Myth. In a world of phones and tablets,
> it seems pretty obvious. Unfortunately, the MythTV project doesn’t seem to
> be able to attract a developer with the skills and time to make this
> happen. Not sure why that is.
> >
>
> Initially the first place to focus is on ensuring the backend services
> API is sufficiently complete as an API to drive *everything* that is
> needed.
>
> That can then be wrapped in "<insert favourite webtech here>"
>
> Regards
> Stuart
>
>
Honestly other than the issue of it accessing the DB directly mythweb
serves it's purpose, the only issue I see with it is the lack of HTML5(live
transcoding) streaming support. but as others have pointed out there are
other solutions for that but it would be great to see this all mythically
converged here :)

I'm guessing that anything that mythweb is accessing the DB for cannot be
gotten from the Services API or it's much easier

Anthony