anyRTC-RTMP-OpenSource

Pros of pion/webrtc

• Extensive documentation and community support
• Actively maintained with frequent updates
• Supports a wide range of WebRTC features and functionality

Cons of pion/webrtc

• Potentially more complex to set up and configure compared to anyRTC-RTMP-OpenSource
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers new to WebRTC

Code Comparison

anyRTC-RTMP-OpenSource:

func (s *Server) Start() error {
    s.listener, err = net.Listen("tcp", s.Addr)
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    defer s.listener.Close()

    for {
        conn, err := s.listener.Accept()
        if err != nil {
            return err
        }
        go s.handleConnection(conn)
    }
}

pion/webrtc:

func main() {
    // Create a new RTCPeerConnection
    peerConnection, err := webrtc.NewPeerConnection(webrtc.Configuration{})
    if err != nil {
        panic(err)
    }

    // Add a track
    track, err := peerConnection.NewTrack(webrtc.DefaultPayloadTypeVP8, rand.Uint32(), "video", "pion")
    if err != nil {
        panic(err)
    }
    _, err = peerConnection.AddTrack(track)
    if err != nil {
        panic(err)
    }
}

Pros of medooze/media-server

• Supports a wide range of media protocols, including SIP, WebRTC, and RTMP
• Highly scalable and can handle a large number of concurrent connections
• Provides a comprehensive set of features for media processing and management

Cons of medooze/media-server

• Steeper learning curve compared to anyRTC-RTMP-OpenSource
• Requires more system resources to run, which may not be suitable for smaller deployments
• Limited documentation and community support compared to some other media server projects

Code Comparison

anyRTC-RTMP-OpenSource

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
    // Initialize the RTMP server
    CRtmpServer rtmpServer;
    rtmpServer.Initialize();

    // Start the server
    rtmpServer.Start();

    // Wait for the server to stop
    rtmpServer.WaitForStop();

    return 0;
}

media-server

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
    // Create a new media server instance
    MediaServer server;

    // Configure the server
    server.setLogLevel(LOG_DEBUG);
    server.setRTPPortRange(10000, 10100);

    // Start the server
    server.start();

    // Wait for the server to stop
    server.join();

    return 0;
}

Pros of SRS

• SRS is a more mature and widely-used project, with a larger community and more contributors.
• SRS has a more comprehensive set of features, including support for various streaming protocols and codecs.
• SRS has better documentation and more active development.

Cons of SRS

• SRS may have a steeper learning curve, especially for beginners.
• SRS may be more complex and resource-intensive, depending on the specific use case.
• SRS may have a larger codebase, which could make it more difficult to customize or extend.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief comparison of the code structure between the two projects:

anyRTC-RTMP-OpenSource

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
    // Initialize the server
    ARTCServer server;
    server.Init();

    // Start the server
    server.Start();

    // Wait for the server to stop
    server.Wait();

    return 0;
}

SRS

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
    // Parse the command line arguments
    SrsConfDirective* conf = _srs_config->parse_argv(argc, argv);

    // Initialize the server
    SrsServer server;
    server.initialize(conf);

    // Run the server
    server.run();

    return 0;
}

Both projects have a similar structure, with a main() function that initializes and runs the server. However, SRS has a more complex configuration system, with the ability to parse command-line arguments and load a configuration file.

Pros of Kurento/kurento-media-server

• Supports a wide range of media processing capabilities, including video and audio processing, recording, and streaming.
• Provides a modular and extensible architecture, allowing developers to easily integrate custom media processing modules.
• Offers a WebRTC-based communication protocol, enabling real-time, low-latency media exchange.

Cons of Kurento/kurento-media-server

• Relatively complex setup and configuration compared to anyRTC-RTMP-OpenSource, which may require more technical expertise.
• Larger codebase and dependencies, which can result in a higher resource footprint and potential performance impact.
• Limited support for RTMP-based streaming, which is a key feature of anyRTC-RTMP-OpenSource.

Code Comparison

Kurento/kurento-media-server (WebRTC-based media processing):

MediaPipeline pipeline = kurento.createMediaPipeline();
WebRtcEndpoint webRtcEp = new WebRtcEndpoint.Builder(pipeline).build();
webRtcEp.connect(webRtcEp);

anyRTC-RTMP-OpenSource (RTMP-based streaming):

RTMPPublisher* publisher = new RTMPPublisher();
publisher->Init("rtmp://localhost/live/stream");
publisher->PushVideoFrame(frame);
publisher->PushAudioFrame(audio);