gonic

Pros of Navidrome

• More active development with frequent updates and releases
• Larger community and user base, leading to better support and documentation
• Built-in support for multiple users and advanced features like Last.fm scrobbling

Cons of Navidrome

• Higher resource usage, especially for large music libraries
• More complex setup process compared to Gonic's simplicity
• Lacks some specific features like native podcast support

Code Comparison

Navidrome (Go):

func (s *Scanner) processAudioFile(ctx context.Context, dirPath string, f os.FileInfo) error {
    filePath := filepath.Join(dirPath, f.Name())
    mf, err := s.loadAudioFile(filePath)
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    return s.persistTrack(ctx, mf, filePath)
}

Gonic (Go):

func (s *Scanner) ScanFile(fullPath string) (*model.Track, error) {
    file, err := os.Open(fullPath)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, fmt.Errorf("open file: %w", err)
    }
    defer file.Close()
    return s.scanFileReader(file, fullPath)
}

Both projects use Go and have similar approaches to scanning audio files, but Navidrome's implementation appears more modular with separate functions for loading and persisting tracks.

Pros of Airsonic

• More mature and feature-rich project with a larger user base
• Supports a wider range of audio formats and streaming options
• Offers a web-based interface for easier management and playback

Cons of Airsonic

• Heavier resource usage due to its Java-based architecture
• Slower development cycle and less frequent updates
• More complex setup and configuration process

Code Comparison

Airsonic (Java):

public class MediaScannerService {
    private static final Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger(MediaScannerService.class);
    private MediaLibraryStatistics statistics;
    private boolean scanning;
    private Timer timer;
}

Gonic (Go):

type Scanner struct {
	db             *db.DB
	mediaFolder    string
	coverFolder    string
	seenTracks     map[string]struct{}
	seenTracksLock sync.Mutex
}

Summary

Airsonic is a more established and feature-rich media server, offering a web interface and support for various audio formats. However, it comes with higher resource requirements and a more complex setup. Gonic, on the other hand, is a lightweight alternative written in Go, focusing on simplicity and efficiency. It may lack some advanced features but offers faster performance and easier deployment, especially for users with limited resources or those preferring a minimalist approach.

Pros of Airsonic-Advanced

• More feature-rich with advanced functionality like playlists, podcasts, and internet radio
• Larger and more active community, potentially leading to better support and more frequent updates
• Supports a wider range of audio formats and streaming protocols

Cons of Airsonic-Advanced

• Heavier resource usage due to its Java-based architecture
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Larger codebase, which may lead to slower development and potential bugs

Code Comparison

Gonic (Go):

func (c *Controller) ServeArtwork(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    artID, err := strconv.Atoi(chi.URLParam(r, "id"))
    if err != nil {
        http.Error(w, "invalid artwork id", 400)
        return
    }
    // ... (artwork serving logic)
}

Airsonic-Advanced (Java):

@GetMapping("/getCoverArt")
public void getCoverArt(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws Exception {
    request = wrapRequest(request);
    Player player = playerService.getPlayer(request, response);
    String id = request.getParameter("id");
    // ... (cover art serving logic)
}

Both projects serve similar purposes as music streaming servers, but Gonic is written in Go and focuses on simplicity and performance, while Airsonic-Advanced is Java-based with a broader feature set. Gonic may be more suitable for users seeking a lightweight solution, whereas Airsonic-Advanced caters to those desiring a full-featured media server with extensive capabilities.

Pros of slimserver

• More mature and feature-rich project with a larger user base
• Supports a wider range of audio formats and streaming services
• Offers a comprehensive web-based interface for management and playback

Cons of slimserver

• Heavier resource usage due to its extensive feature set
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Written in Perl, which may be less familiar to some developers

Code Comparison

slimserver (Perl):

sub initPlugin {
    my $class = shift;
    $class->SUPER::initPlugin(@_);
    Slim::Control::Request::addDispatch(['mycommand', '_command'], [1, 1, 0, \&myCommandHandler]);
}

gonic (Go):

func (c *Controller) ServeHTTP(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    c.Router.ServeHTTP(w, r)
}

The code snippets highlight the different languages and approaches used in each project. slimserver uses Perl and follows a more traditional plugin-based architecture, while gonic is written in Go and utilizes a modern HTTP router pattern.