[KimDaBa] another feature request

[Robert L Krawitz]

   Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 21:50:28 +0200
   From: Martin =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F6ller?= <martin at xss.co.at>

   On 04 May 2005, Robert L Krawitz wrote:

   >    Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:04:38 +0200
   >    From: Martin H=F6ller <martin at xss.co.at>
   >
   >    As i was trying to move some of my older images to a CD i found out
   >    that offline-support in kimdaba is kind of lacking.
   >
   >    What i wanted to do is to move some folders containing pictures to
   >    another location to burn it on a CD. But when i moved the folders i
   >    found out that the thumbnails were in a subfolder which prevented
   >    kimdaba from viewing thumbnails when (re)moving the whole folder.
   >
   > The easiest way to do that is to export the photos into the directory
   > of your choice.  I know I submitted a patch to allow exporting by
   > links, so it wouldn't consume more disk space.

   This would only solve part of my problem: i could use your
   suggestion to create a folder with all the images i want to burn on
   a CD. That's fine.

   But on the other hand i would still have these images on disk in
   the picture-folder, where i wanted to remove them to save some disk
   space.

Then use the hard link option when exporting: that won't take up any
significant amount of extra disk space.

   >    So what i suggest is the following:
   >
   >    1) move all the thumbnails in a folder at the very top (like =3D20
   >       CategoryImages). What about a hidden directory .kimdaba/ with a
   >       CategoryImages and Thumbnails folders in it?
   >
   >    2) As kimdaba uses checksums anyway, why not use it in the names of
   >       the thumbnails?
   >
   > This won't solve your 8+3 problem anyway, since kimdaba uses MD5
   > checksums (160 bits).

   Ups, my fault. I took a bad example.

   I'm still of the opinion that using the existing checksum in the
   filename would be better.

   At the moment i have about 40 file with the name
   64x64-0-dscf0003.jpg.

Which is a whole lot better than

a4743227232c6c57105c62d8001b9a80.jpg

or

64x64-0-a4743227232c6c57105c62d8001b9a80.jpg

since it at least tells you what file the thumbnail is associated
with, no?

   Anyway, the actual reason for my mail was not the renaming of the
   thumbnails but to find another location for them due to a better
   offline support.

   My preferred way of saving images to a CD is to take a folder, burn
   it on a CD and remove it in the original location. This is not
   possible without breaking the thumbnail preview in kimdaba.

There are advantages and disadvantages both ways.  I prefer the
current way; the thumbnails are closer to the actual images.  Consider
what happens if you have the image directory split across multiple
filesystems; wouldn't you want the thumbnails to stay with the images?

-- 
Robert Krawitz                                     <rlk at alum.mit.edu>

Tall Clubs International  --  http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf at uunet.uu.net
Project lead for Gimp Print   --    http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton