malcolm.caldwell@xxxxxxxxxx(Malcolm Caldwell) 28.08.05 14:37 >On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 10:39 +0200, Luca Olivetti wrote: >> Malcolm Caldwell wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Again, IMHO, this seems fairly complex. Why should vdr consult >>> plugins about this stuff? >> >> e.g. because plain vdr doesn't know anything about a positioner (or >> other weird things: vdr is good because it's flexible and you can do >> almost everything you want with it). >Maybe. But why should vdr need a plugin to do normal diseqc 1.3 >positioning? IMHO it should work 'out of the box'. >I guess this does not mean that there should not be a hook, just that >its use should be optional and only an optimisation for positioners >with plugins that can tell when the dish has finished moving. >(actuator, and perhaps future diseqc positioners...) Please don't forget the similar "resource dependency" problems, "LNB-sharing" users have on the other (lower) end. Dish positioned to satellite A should never be moved to B, if a timer is running. That' pretty the same with LNB sharing: If polarization is currently "vertical" and a timer is running, it should never switch to "horizontal", because that would break the running recording. But it's no problem to switch to an other "vert" channel, on an other board. The current Solution VDR offers offers is: Buy a dish for each satellitte. At least if the responses acording to LNB-sharing will be translated to motor dishes. That's a : "A software with a hardware patch"! ;-) When VDR was new, everybody was happy it works, Nobody cares about CAM, sharing LNB, Diseq, motor dishes and cards with different channels (multi dish). Maybe the entire resource handling should rewritten from scratch, systematcally? Rainer
