<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/29/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Geoffrey Kruse</b> <<a href="mailto:gkruse@gmail.com">gkruse@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Well, I wouldn't expect to support any protocols prior to the one<br>where this is implemented. (Same as the current situation)</blockquote><div><br>Yes, I had that in mind too. But given the protocol description, wouldn't it be trivial to make a proxy that provided a "MythTV protocol XYZ" compatible socket. Do you see what I'm getting at? If the backend is really on port 6398 (I don't know the real port number right now), couldn't you create a proxy at say, 10030 and have it act as a simple proxy for 6398 but just rewriting the string you describe? Then you could just point an old client to the proxy. Are am I missing something?
<br><br>In any case, the fallback is that starting with, say, protocol 32 the string is a concatenation as suggested previously in this thread with each new protocol adding new data.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Geoff</blockquote><div><br>--<br>Mike<br><br></div></div>