Icecast Streaming Media Server

[DJ-Zath]

this sounds silly, I know.. but actually... its NOT a bad idea!

at this moment, its just an IDEA... but how well would Icecast hold up to benig a web server for simple webpages?

the advantage to using Icecast is that I can then directly-embed the stream into the site.. and save myself a port or 2

(the reason for all of this is because at the moment, the host isn't letting me disable their "managed" version of Apache, and they're not letting me install anything ELSE.. I have tried to install Apache AND I got it working, however, I can't seem to get any of the MODULES (addins) working, okay, they would work.. but they don't even EXIST! which makes this particular install of Apache nothing more than a simple 'dumb' web server.. so, why not just use Icecast then, instead?

(I DO use Icecast's web server to serve a simple XML page that drives a LED marquee)

just a silly thought! opinions are welcome!
_________________
-DjZ-

[karlH]

it is already a simple one, the xsl pages you request have links to image files which are served for things like icons, other flat file contents should also go through. The question is what else above that would be useful, obviously calling php or perl is another level.

karl.

[DJ-Zath]

hi karl

and EXACTLY..

I'm still having a problem with that now.. (calling php and rewrite in apache)

it was just a silly thought.. but too bad I couldn't do those things in icecast.. I also winder just hw "robust"icecast would be as a webserver

btw, and, of course you know this.. others might not...

if you set fileserver on, then icecast will serve webpages normally like any other webserver, of course no SSIs or php/rewrite fun...

some basic permission control woud be neat too.. like an .htaccess file or whatnot.. (I use Icecast to serve a dynamic page thats generated by an eggdrop bot to control a LED marquee.. the only "security", however, is I use some really strange filename hoping that noone will guess it hehehe
_________________
-DjZ-

[karlH]

Handling external scripts will be a different load pattern for sure, conceptually it could be done but whether it's worth the development time to fix it up is another matter. The other possibility is working like a proxy.

You should be able to use a mount with <authentication type=... on files even with 2.3.2

karl.

[DJ-Zath]

actually, I have gotten Apache working properly.. WOW!


oh wait! you mean i can call up a proxy to ANY file and icecast will serve it up withot it beig in the website directory?

I understand what I [think] you're saying.. I'll have to give that a try!

I'll report back my findings...
_________________
-DjZ-

[karlH]

The file would need to be in webroot but auth can be applied on it. The 2.3.2 code doesn't apply wildcards but the kh build does so a mount-name of /content/* and an authentication block would apply to files in /content

karl.

[DJ-Zath]

a-hah!

the authentication is an interesting idea, though.. I have already thought of that, however, the "reader" can't auth, though... since its a eggdrop in a cgywin shell under windows (TCL native sockets can NOT auth)

good call, though!
_________________
-DjZ-