Talk:Real-Time Messaging Protocol: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:06, 20 September 2011

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

RTMPT

RTMP - what is RTMPT - a RMPT Tunnel I beleive? Any info on this? They have also created RTMPE which is an RTMP + Encryption stream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.83.71.69 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 February 2007

rtmp ripper?

Is there a rtmp rip application (enter a rtmp url, get a flv file on your hd)? For OS X? Thanks for any pointers, Peter S. 02:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free server

I've only just begun working with RTMP in ActionScript 3 (Flex 2 SDK), but I'm using FluorineFx (http://www.fluorinefx.com) for the server and it's free / open source rather than the other commercial implementations listed. I don't know that it "fully" implements the protocol, but it seems to do all the things RTMP is for (RPC, Shared Objects, etc.). Neilob 14:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do note it's made for Microsoft .NET Framework. -Lwc4life (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kumar Gupta (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)==Protocol Flavour== RTMP protocol Flavour[reply]

The information on this Link is related to Wiki and its not just a link, Its useful information. Please include this and revert the changes made

Full Implementation

As there is no public specification, what qualifies a "full implementation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.199.17 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

Some of the notes on elements missing from the spec appear to be original research (or at least non-cited). A look at the current version of the spec suggests that this information is no longer accurate. As one example, the little-endianness of the stream message IDs are clearly documented in the spec. I'll wait a few days for comments, then reduce it to something like the following:

Adobe has released a specification (cite-link) that documents RTMP (except for the portions relating to copy protection). The specification includes a limited patent grant (which does not apply to 'prohibited uses', such as recording streamed content to disk).

The bit about 'Adobe is liable for initiating a false action under the Act' is likewise non-cited. It is also, as far as I know, untested in the courts. I'm inclined to just remove it (the section already documents the conflict between Adobe and some competing clients).

Drrakn (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re requested clarification

"Other RPC services are made asynchronously with a single client/server request/response model, so real-time communication is not necessary"

request/response happen pretty much in real time, so it would be better to say here, that "maintaining a persistent communication channel is not necessary upon arrival of response".

also, rtmp supports publisher/subscriber model, which is different from video/audio streaming, still requires a persistent connection so messages can be pushed to client. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.212.246 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RTMFP

The RTMFP section should be moved to the Real Time Media Flow Protocol article, where it belongs, shouldn't it? Or is there a reason to keep it here? ehn (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 == Full Implementation ==
 As there is no public specification, what qualifies a "full implementation"?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.139.199.17|84.139.199.17]] ([[User talk:84.139.199.17|talk]]) 20:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Original research? ==
+Some of the notes on elements missing from the spec appear to be original research (or at least non-cited). A look at the current version of the spec suggests that this information is no longer accurate. As one example, the little-endianness of the stream message IDs are clearly documented in the spec. I'll wait a few days for comments, then reduce it to something like the following:
+''Adobe has released a specification (cite-link) that documents RTMP (except for the portions relating to copy protection). The specification includes a limited patent grant (which does not apply to 'prohibited uses', such as recording streamed content to disk).''
+The bit about 'Adobe is liable for initiating a false action under the Act' is likewise non-cited. It is also, as far as I know, untested in the courts. I'm inclined to just remove it (the section already documents the conflict between Adobe and some competing clients).
+[[User:Drrakn|Drrakn]] ([[User talk:Drrakn|talk]]) 08:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 == Re requested clarification ==