Pherthyl 23:44, 23 November 2006 (CET)This page is for mockups of new ways of doing the interface. We have chance at a clean break with the new Qt interface, I think it should be used to get rid of the some of the complexity and ambiguity in the old interface. NOTE: I literally JUST got into VLC development, so some of what I put here might be completely unworkable, or need some modifications. Please tell me when that happens --
The open network stream is a mess in the old interface. Most of the protocols require basically the same info, and yet we have 4 radio buttons to select from protocols, then 2 URL fields, 2 Port selectors, 1 address field (URL/Address, why the distinction).
I propose to change it to something simpler: Open Network
Basically, you select the protocol from the dropdown, then you type in your address. If you just paste a url into the address field, the dropdown automatically detects the correct protocol from the url (if it can) and sets the correct value. If you have a url, and then change the protocol from the dropdown, it will modify the url appropriately. If you select a protocol where the port or the options are meaningless, they will be disabled (either that or they won't be shown unless they are relevant.
- Looks better indeed :) The port number thing is kind of problematic though. If you get stuff like an mms url on the web it'll use something like "mms://host.example.com:8080/myteststream". If the user specified port is left null, like in your screen shot, i guess that we can disregard it. But what happens if the user specifies the port number ? (maybe that port input should only be available for udp/rtp (and their multicast conterparts)) Dionoea 11:42, 24 November 2006 (CET)
- Good point. I think we have 2 options here:
- 1. When a user types/pastes an address like "mms://host.example.com:8080/myteststream" with a port number, we detect this and set the port correctly. If they change the port number in the combobox, we update the textual URL to match. While this probably wouldn't be a problem to implement, it's kind of redundant to show the port in two places.
- 2. Only show/enable the port selector for protocols that cannot specify the port in the address, or where it is more common to get an address without a port (UDP/RDP). This is more consistent with the previous way of doing things, probably preferrable. --Pherthyl 21:05, 24 November 2006 (CET)
- I'd do number 2. Dionoea 15:34, 25 November 2006 (CET)