> In system integration perspective,
> I think it's worth to support legacy system (already deployed cameras)
No - because (once again) this “legacy system” has a *bug*, and our installed
base is far larger than theirs.
> Its' right the server has a bug but it's not possible to fix it.
> because
In system integration perspective,
I think it's worth to support legacy system (already deployed cameras)
Its' right the server has a bug but it's not possible to fix it.
because our client already bought it few years ago and maintenance period would
be expired.
Please reconsider your base rule
Some CCTV decribe additional information in the response of GET_PARAMETER. Such
like,
"
RTSP/1.0 200 OK
CSeq: 7
Content-Length: 0
Content-Type: text/parameters
Session: 109532068
framerate: 25
"
In this case,
We couldn't handle body (framerate: 25) because content length is zero.
Furthermore,
And note also that your proposed patch is not guaranteed to work, because
sometimes more than one socket read operation (on a TCP connection) is needed
to get all of the data. This is precisely why the “Content-Length:” value is
important; it tells the client precisely how much data it needs to
Sorry, no. The server has a bug (because it says "Content-Length: 0”). It
needs to be fixed. Please tell the manufacturer of this server (camera) to fix
their bug.
As a general rule, we will not change our software (which you get for free) to
work around bugs in hardware (which you pay for).
