Skip to main content

ActionScript: Dynamic Streaming

There's an article here about dynamic streaming in Flash Media Server 3.5 using Flash 10's new QoS features. It's a three-part series, and I just spent several hours reading it.

It talks about a class that Adobe provides called "DynamicStream". It doesn't come with ActionScript 3.0--it's a separate download. I was hoping to integrate this class into JW Player in order to do more intelligent bitrate switching using Adobe's new QoS features.

Let me explain why I'm frustrated.

First of all, this article was a three-part series, each with several pages. Hence, it was very long--much longer than I think was necessary. Part 3 covered "Integrating dynamic streaming with existing video players". Since it was the final page in the entire series, I expected it to be very exciting and useful. Instead, it was very mediocre. I can summarize, "Hey, this stuff doesn't work in Flash 9, so you'll have to do something else to support older players. Here, read this long code sample to learn how to parse the Flash player version number." There's a lot of code like:
private function _verifyServerVersion( p_version:String ):void
{
var fmsVersion:Number = Number( p_version.split(",", 2).join(".") );

trace("fmsVersion: " + fmsVersion);

if ( fmsVersion >= _targetFMSVersion )
{
_isServerCapable = true;
}
else
{
_isServerCapable = false;
}
}
At the very least, that if/else could have been written:
_isServerCapable = (fmsVersion >= _targetFMSVersion);
However, I think it's a flaw in ActionScript that you have to parse the version numbers manually at all.

Next up, I looked at the DynamicStream class, and it had multiple different coding styles:
if(...) 
{
...
if(...){
...
if (...) {
...
if(...) { ... }
When I see stuff like that, I lose my confidence in the code. The file is 1049 lines long, by the way.

Having said all that, what really frustrates me is that the code doesn't take into consideration the widths for the various encodings. Currently, JW Player will pick the best encoding based on width and bitrate. That way, you can have different encodings for different size players. This is important for several reasons. First of all, there's no use pulling down an HD video for a 480x320 player until the user goes full-screen. It eats up bits that could be going to quality instead of size. Furthermore, it's better to avoid scaling on the client since it looks better to scale only once during encoding.

Hence, I'm more than a little disappointed by the DynamicStream class, and I'm stuck wondering how the heck I'm going to pull the useful bits out of this 1049 line file in order to integrate them into JW Player. Ugh, painful.

Oh, did I mention Silverlight takes care of bitrate switching entirely automatically? Double ugh.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within Tunes.org , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and jabber.org. Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p