Difference between revisions of "VRET Archi"
(→Network Mechanism) |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
== Network Mechanism == | == Network Mechanism == | ||
| − | In order to avoid future difficulties it seems necessary to switch to a HTTP based protocol. For instance [http://www.xmlrpc.com/ xmp-rpc] seems a good option. | + | In order to avoid future difficulties it seems necessary to switch to a HTTP based protocol to handle communication between the patient monitoring system and the patient computers. For instance [http://www.xmlrpc.com/ xmp-rpc] seems a good option. |
Currently we use plain sockets. While fast and simple, this requires all firewalls on the route between server and client to be open. Usually these ports will not be open except inside a single domain. Opening them will require negotiations with the network security staff and seems better avoided if possible. | Currently we use plain sockets. While fast and simple, this requires all firewalls on the route between server and client to be open. Usually these ports will not be open except inside a single domain. Opening them will require negotiations with the network security staff and seems better avoided if possible. | ||
Revision as of 07:37, 11 August 2009
The goal of the system architecture is to provide an infrastructure for VRET related projects so that we
- provide the therapist with basic feedback like video, sound, heart rate
- provide programmers with a common approach and tools to handle remote therapy
- enable re-use of commonly required components
- easy switching between various therapies
The figure below shows the first proposal we arrived at after meeting with Willem-Paul, Niels, Christian, and Daniel.
Hardware
Check VRET_Hardware for details on the VR machine
Check Video_Hardware for details on the video streaming hardware
Network Mechanism
In order to avoid future difficulties it seems necessary to switch to a HTTP based protocol to handle communication between the patient monitoring system and the patient computers. For instance xmp-rpc seems a good option.
Currently we use plain sockets. While fast and simple, this requires all firewalls on the route between server and client to be open. Usually these ports will not be open except inside a single domain. Opening them will require negotiations with the network security staff and seems better avoided if possible.
