Sonos with node.js, my attempt!

I have a quick question, if that's OK? I notice that if I create a stereo pair from two speakers I get 4 topology-change events in quick succession (although not as a contiguous block - there are also some volume and transport-state events mixed in with the topology-change events.)

The events seem to be identical, so I can't work out why there is more than one! For instance, grouping the speakers creates just a single topology-change event, as I would expect.


No, never experienced that. Haven't tried the stereo pair though. However, receiving multiple topology events at a rapid rate is a "normal" scenario, I think that if you "ungroup" players you will get that behavior.

I thought I already aggregated this, but seems like I removed that code. It may be a good idea to do so, but remember to act on the last event and not void the following ones, to prevent that you are working on stale data.

No, never experienced that. Haven't tried the stereo pair though. However, receiving multiple topology events at a rapid rate is a "normal" scenario, I think that if you "ungroup" players you will get that behavior.

I thought I already aggregated this, but seems like I removed that code. It may be a good idea to do so, but remember to act on the last event and not void the following ones, to prevent that you are working on stale data.

Thanks for the advice!

And you're right - I get two events when I ungroup, although still just one when I first create the group. I wonder why Sonos does this ...?

Thanks for the advice!

And you're right - I get two events when I ungroup, although still just one when I first create the group. I wonder why Sonos does this ...?

My best guess is that each coordinator will send a topology trigger, one from the player that becomes it's own group, and one from the coordinator of the group which loses a player. However this is mere speculation.

I totally love this. Could not reliably get anything to work with WINE, whether on FreeBSD (my OS) or several of the Linuxes. Tried for months! :)

But this is awesome. Works great in FreeBSD. Thanks for writing it!

Z

This controller is great. I bought 4 players [along with 2 bridges] for my company. 3 will be placed in one building and the 4th in another. My goal is to basically have 2 instances of the controller giving the people in building 1 access to only those speakers and those in building 2 access to only their speaker. Is it possible to force the controller to only 'discover' the particular speaker(s) I want? I want to keep them all on the same network for many reason, but also so that I can control all speaker from another instance of the controller that would discover them all. Sound simple enough?

This controller is great. I bought 4 players [along with 2 bridges] for my company. 3 will be placed in one building and the 4th in another. My goal is to basically have 2 instances of the controller giving the people in building 1 access to only those speakers and those in building 2 access to only their speaker. Is it possible to force the controller to only 'discover' the particular speaker(s) I want? I want to keep them all on the same network for many reason, but also so that I can control all speaker from another instance of the controller that would discover them all. Sound simple enough?

Well, if you separate them as two different systems (households), this would be possible (with a small modification). However, that would not make it possible to control all of them from one controller.

I don't see a simple solution to the latter, if you want to "remove" the possibility to restrict access to some of the players. Maybe it would be possible to implement some sort of IP (or UUID or room-name) based blacklist, but I'm not sure how I feel about that. You would still require to limit the access to the different instances of the controller as well, otherwise they would just open up the other controller anyhow.

If you could elaborate on different user scenarios that you would like to support, I could give you a better answer.

basically i have multiple 'offices' that are all on the same network. I would like to be able to have 'sub' controllers so that 'Jim' can only see his speaker(s) and 'Joan' can only she her speaker(s). I'm not concerned about Jim being able to open up 'Joan's' controller as i can restrict that via apache/htaccess. I just want a way to see only certain speakers when opening up certain controllers?. Please forgive my ignorance, but is there a way to 'turn off' Sonos-Discovery so it doesn't search the network for devices but just use user-set ip addresses to access/control those specific devices?

Just wire up an additional Bridge, then associate the desired players and controllers off it it. Voila, two separate Sonos households which will not see each other.

basically i have multiple 'offices' that are all on the same network. I would like to be able to have 'sub' controllers so that 'Jim' can only see his speaker(s) and 'Joan' can only she her speaker(s). I'm not concerned about Jim being able to open up 'Joan's' controller as i can restrict that via apache/htaccess. I just want a way to see only certain speakers when opening up certain controllers?. Please forgive my ignorance, but is there a way to 'turn off' Sonos-Discovery so it doesn't search the network for devices but just use user-set ip addresses to access/control those specific devices?

So basically, the controller searches for players and the first one that responds will be the one I associate with (like a regular controller). This player will then give me info of the rest of the players that belongs to the same system (household). If you chose to setup two different systems, the controller will only see the first system it finds. To force a controller to a specific system, would require some sort of configuration (which would be easy to implement), but you would still only see players from a specific system, never both at the same time, and you can't pair players from two different systems because of this.

What perhaps would be possible, is to consider all your players a complete system, but controller 1 could not control player 4, and controller 2 could not control player 1,2,3. By control, I mean that they wouldn't be able to adjust volume, change track etc. However, if someone would install the official clients, this can no longer be enforced. The upside would be that you could still group all 4 players together, but would only be controllable by one of the controllers (depending on coordinator, initial player for grouping). This would be a lot more work, and I'm not sure if it's such a good idea either. If you don't have the requirement to group all 4 players together, then the split-system setup is enough.

I would be ok with having two different systems than could only be controlled independently but is that possible on the same LAN?