Skip to main content

Caktus Ship It! Day 2014 Q3 Post-Mortem - Part 2: Playlists and Peers

As of my first hour playing around I was able to share and synchronize play of any MP3 between multiple users with a simple drag and drop interface. Things were going pretty well for my project, but I had some work to do getting from there to the collaborative playlist I had in mind.

I was already just assuming we were only caring about one file, because that worked well to get things up and running fast. My next step was to remove that assumption and start keeping a list of songs. This was pretty easy, in fact. I started writing a simple list of songs as they were downloaded, each with a play button which performed the <audio> tag set and play that previously done automatically. Each user could now play any song that was shared and to restore the previous synchronized playing that happened when they only dealt with a single done I incorporated broadcast changeTrack messages. I added two other broadcasts, pause and play, which would allow any users to pause and play the songs on all users simultaneously.

This was working well, and I had roughly scaled my previous prototype to a multi-song version. Unfortunately, this version was even more rough and bug-ridden than the first. Most importantly among its faults: I couldn't really predict the order different clients would receive each track, so the playlists wouldn't remain in the same order for everyone. I wasn't really ready to tackle the actual collaborative playlist problem. This is probably the most difficult problem the project will face. It is a lot harder because I'm determined to keep the entire thing peer-controlled with no central decided or coordinator.

After banging my head on the simplest way I could provide this editing for the initial version, but coming up short, I realized it was a waste of my time. I didn't really need to do collaborative editing for a prototype, I just needed to make sure they all kept the same order.

So I alphabetized the songs for all users.

The simplest solution to some problems is not to have them

At this stage I could play any song on the shared playlist and hear it on any connected machine. Things continued nicely.

Implementing playlist progression was pretty easier. Along with progression I added highlights on the list to show which song was currently being played.

I decided at this point to do a bit more seriously testing and increased my test set of songs I was drag and dropping from 3 to 8.

I crashed Chrome. How I did that and how much of this work I had to completely throw out the window? Read Part 3 (Coming Soon) to find out.

Part 1: Proof of Concept in Under an Hour

Part 2: Playlists and Reseeding Songs

Part 3: Two Steps Back and Three Steps Forward

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…