Galène videoconferencing server discussion list archives
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fabrice Rouillier <>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <>
Subject: [Galene] Re: Galène management interface
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 07:49:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2756 bytes --]

Hi Juliusz

In terms of usage, having a sophisticated administration interface allows to delegate many tasks to privileged users and is thus an added value when using the software collectively.

For a more personal use or if the number of privileged users stays low, the current situation looks fine since it is light.

I guess that Galene is a fantastic software for a « personal »  use  (teaching, conferences with a low number of webcams ) and thus it does not seem to be a problem in that case to have a rudimentary interface.

So one then compare   1 privileged user = 1 galene server  with rudimentary administration interface  vs   1 unique server with a sophisticated administration interface.

The first situation lead to some other problems such as  having different ports opened for different servers .

What would be the additional effort in having both (for example a choice à compile time) ?



Fabrice Rouillier

Bureau virtuel : https://www.rouillier <https://www.rouillier/>.fr/visio/fabrice

> Le 23 avr. 2021 à 18:31, Juliusz Chroboczek <> a écrit :
> Dear all,
> There's been a submission for a management interface at
> The main issue right now is whether this should be merged into the Galène
> repository.  My personal opinion right now (but I might still change my
> mind) is that I'd like to see it in a separate repository (and Go module)
> that depends on Galène.  I've already started exporting some Galène
> internals in order to avoid code duplication.
> There are good reasons to keep the interface separate:
> 1. Galène is intended to be easy to integrate into an existing website
>   (imagine adding videoconferencing functionality to a cat video forum or
>   an e-learning platform).  For embedding, it would probably be better to
>   provide the right hooks for an external interface rather than
>   a complete management interface.
> 2. People's opinions on management interfaces are likly to be variable,
>   and therefore it would be good to not bind too closely Galène with
>   a single management interface.
> There are also some reasons to merge the two:
> I. Having a single repository will make it easier to install both at the
>   same time.
> II. Having a canonical management interface integrated with Galène will
>    reduce user confusion.
> I'd like to hear people's opinions on the subject.
> -- Juliusz
> _______________________________________________
> Galene mailing list --
> To unsubscribe send an email to

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6908 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-04-24  5:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-23 16:31 [Galene] " Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-04-23 17:48 ` [Galene] " ibu ☉ radempa
2021-04-23 20:44 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-04-24  5:49 ` Fabrice Rouillier [this message]
2021-04-24  6:43   ` Rémy Dernat

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='[Galene] Re: Galène management interface' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox