Discussion:
[Bug 778592] New: souphttpsrc: Add sessions/caching to souphttpsrc
(too old to reply)
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-02-14 07:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

Bug ID: 778592
Summary: souphttpsrc: Add sessions/caching to souphttpsrc
Classification: Platform
Product: GStreamer
Version: unspecified
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: Normal
Component: gst-plugins-good
Assignee: gstreamer-***@lists.freedesktop.org
Reporter: ***@siobud.com
QA Contact: gstreamer-***@lists.freedesktop.org
GNOME version: ---

I have a pipeline that fetches a videofile on a remote HTTPS server and then
plays it on a loop (catch the EOS and remove/add another souphttpsrc) however
this means that for every loop the remote file needs to be downloaded again
since I am tearing down and then creating a new souphttpsrc.

I would like to add the ability to maybe pass a SoupCache to souphttpsrc, so I
can pass around a cache/session and only download a file once even though
souphttpsrc has been created/destroyed multiple times.

Would a patch like this be accepted into souphttpsrc, and if so are there any
suggestions/requirements to make sure my patch would be accepted.

thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-02 13:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

Stephan Hesse <***@gmail.com> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |***@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Stephan Hesse <***@gmail.com> ---
Hey everybody

This sounds like a cool feature. I think this makes a lot of sense to have a
persistent pipeline life cycle surviving cache for HTTP (or other) resources.

I think the problem could be more generally addressed, and less libsoup
specific.

How about: a caching URI handler implementation that would generally
instantiate internally existing URI handler implementations and cache on the
filesystem previous results, while taking them from a specifically set path or
eventually using the actual URI handler to do a request if the cache does not
have the resource. Obviously, cache could be disabled at any point to force
refreshing a resource.

This could be made completely HTTP (or any other protocol) implementation
agnostic. It would just be about mapping a URI to a file storing the previously
downloaded data related to it.

I'd favor such a solution as it would be more generally addressed, solving more
issues while staying independent of further HTTP (or other) implementations and
libsoup specifics.

What do you think?

Cheers
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-03 06:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #2 from Sean-Der <***@siobud.com> ---
That sounds like it would solve my problem! No idea what the idiomatic element
would look like (would it just be an attribute on uridecodebin etc..)

Do you want to start a thread on gstreamer-devel about it (or I can)? I would
just really love to get sign-off from a committer before I put the work in. The
problem doesn't seem technically challenging, but don't know if there will be
push back (this can be solved by the application)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-03 10:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <***@coaxion.net> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |***@coaxion.net

--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <***@coaxion.net> ---
Sounds like a good plan or at least useful in general. Cache invalidation is a
bit tricky in the general case though.

Do you plan on working on this, Stephan?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-03 17:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #4 from Stephan Hesse <***@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Sebastian Dröge (slomo) from comment #3)
Post by "GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
Sounds like a good plan or at least useful in general.
Nice that you agree, let me know if you have any more ideas in this direction!
Post by "GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
Cache invalidation is a bit tricky in the general case though.
Hm I kind off know what you mean, but not sure. Can you give an example?

Probably these things should really be left to decide by the application. We
shouldn't look into the actual protocol or app payload specifics I think.
Either its enabled and it checks if the URI is "mapped" on the filesystem at
the chosen path and push it (leaving the actual protocol implementing URI
handler inactive), or we are disabled and just pass on all the calls to the
actual URI handler which may get the data.

What do you think? I am probably missing something, right? :) What would be
your approach?
Post by "GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
Do you plan on working on this, Stephan?
Would be a nice little thing to do, but just for fun ;) Can't guarantee this
will be production-ready anytime soon. But I d be happy to churn out a basic
version of it.

@Sean-Der What do you mean by "this can be solved by the application"?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-03 17:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #5 from Stephan Hesse <***@gmail.com> ---
@Sean-Der Anyway, no idea what will be the result accepted in the end, but if
you find this a good idea too, lets collaborate.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-03 18:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #6 from Sean-Der <***@siobud.com> ---
@Stephan "this can be solved by the application" sometimes projects reject
uncommon features because they are a maintenance burden, and a lot of people
wouldn't use the feature poor wording on my part.

I would love to work on it! I have some GStreamer elements I haven't released
and VERY tiny patches upstream. So I hopefully have enough knowledge to slow
you down :p

I will also being using this in a real-world application, so I can champion it
getting merged/polished and would be using it myself everyday.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-16 13:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <***@coaxion.net> ---
SoupSession shared is implemented in bug #780140. Should we mark this one as a
duplicate of that one, or should we re-purpose this bug for a
source-independent caching thing?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-16 13:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <***@coaxion.net> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-21 14:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #8 from Stephan Hesse <***@gmail.com> ---
I'd still be for implementing some sort of source-independent caching thing ;)
That is, I think one could even cache based on other stream properties, not
only resource URI but eventually time-stamps. What do you think? For example a
demuxer might be able to cache its previous output on a VoD stream and thus
could immediatly resume playing at any point even if all the downstream queues
have been flushed. It might be a new concept of efficient re-buffering? I have
seen that a lot of time in adaptive streaming performance when seeking the
issue is the retention of previously played content. But maybe this also goes
way beyond the frame of the initial post here.

@Sean-Der So until now I lacked the time to pursue this. Have you gotten any
progress in this? :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-21 20:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #9 from Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <***@coaxion.net> ---
Part of what you describe is already handled by queue2 (see the ringbuffer
related properties).

How would you rename this bug, what should be implemented here, what's the
scope? :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-24 12:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #10 from Stephan Hesse <***@gmail.com> ---
True, now that you say it.

Let's close this for now. If I make up my mind more clearly about the idea will
post something.

Question: So queue2 with ringbuffer does keep things around even after a flush?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-24 12:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <***@coaxion.net> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEEDINFO |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INCOMPLETE

--- Comment #11 from Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <***@coaxion.net> ---
I don't know, but it probably should in case after the flush it has to continue
from the same position. It does keep it around in the non-ringbuffer mode when
the whole stream is cached to a file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-24 23:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #12 from Sean-Der <***@siobud.com> ---
Sorry for the late response!

I tried out the SoupSession patch and it works great, however it doesn't work
with setting a SoupCache on the session. Libsoup is writing to my on-disk
cache, but not reading from it.

The SoupCache seems to only be queried with the async API
https://github.com/GNOME/libsoup/blob/master/libsoup/soup-session.c#L4300

If I use soup_session_send_async in a toy program it works great. I am not
super familiar libsoup however, I submitted a TINY bug fix relating to certs
but beyond that I haven't dug through anything else.

IMO GStreamer provided me with the tools to solve my problem (directly set or
manipulate the session so I can do a SoupCache myself) so I consider this bug
fixed. If anyone has suggestions about what I can do next/have wrong about
libsoup and caching I would love to hear

@Stephan I am pretty busy as well unfortunately. I am going to keep going down
this path and see what I can get working. It would be awesome if I could just
get a changed into libsoup or GStreamer and get the caching working, but we
will see!

thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-25 08:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #13 from Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <***@coaxion.net> ---
It would seem like a bug if libsoup only makes use of the cache when doing
async operations. Please report that to libsoup, thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-25 18:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #14 from Sean-Der <***@siobud.com> ---
In case anyone ends up here from a search engine here is the libsoup bug, was
already filed by somebody else in 2013
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=693967
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-28 07:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #15 from Sean-Der <***@siobud.com> ---
Hey slomo,

I submitted a patch to libsoup, and the good news is that setting a SoupCache
on the gst.soup.session SoupSession works!

So on my local instance I can loop video files (catch the EOF) and re-add with
no additional downloads.

Do you have any suggestions for people I should reach out to, IRC channels I
should be in to get my patch reviewed?

thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
"GStreamer" (GNOME Bugzilla)
2017-03-28 09:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778592

--- Comment #16 from Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <***@coaxion.net> ---
Dan, who reported bug #693967, is the maintainer of libsoup, he'll probably
look at your patch sooner or later :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
Loading...