FOSDEM brainstorm

[Maximilian Kossick]

On Sunday 25 February 2007, Ian Monroe wrote:
> On 2/25/07, Maximilian Kossick <maximilian.kossick at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > We talked about removing the filebrowser and replacing it by a better
> > konqueror context menu. I don't think the file browser is very useful,
> > except for moving new songs to the collection. If we make it possible to
> > access an option like "move to Amarok's collection folder" in the context
> > menu of a folder/file, we could remove the filebrowser. A problem might
> > be the support for alternative filemanagers (dolphin, nautilus, ...).
>
> I disagree with this. I still use the file browser regularly, as I
> have my music organized by genre and subgenre in folders so its how I
> browse my music (as opposed to picking out an artist or album that I
> know I want, which is when I use the collection browser). I've
> actually never used it to move new songs into the collection.
>
> The file browser is why I started using Amarok in the first place. :)
> I don't think my use case is so odd.

Neither Sven, Bart, Martin nor me are using the file browser a lot, but it 
looks like we were wrong to generalise. 

> I'm not sure about making the ContextView based on scripts. Its such a
> central part to Amarok, maintaining some control over seems like it
> might be a good idea. Also its pretty speed-critical. I was worried
> about how much flexibility we would have with scripts, but then I saw
> this:
> http://qtdeveloper.net/archives/2007/01/05/say-hello-to-qtscript/
> And realized that we could do pretty much anything we wanted to in scripts.

We can use either Kross or QtScript. I don't think speed will be much of a 
problem if we use either of those because there won't be any IPC. If I 
remember correctly somebody actually wrote a patch once which made it 
possible to generate the context by calling an external script (or multiple 
scripts?), which was very slow, mainly because of the necessary IPC I think.

> I agree the other things in your notes. Alexandre has started thinking
> about making Artist, Album etc. And our discussions regarding how to
> reform the database came to the same sort of conclusions.
>
> Perhaps we could have a new Meta:: namespace? So Meta::Artist,
> Meta::Bundle, Meta::Album. Just a random idea. :)

A namespace sounds good, but what do you mean by Meta::Bundle?? Why not simply 
create classes for all tags.
> -Ian

Max
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok-devel/attachments/20070226/1cae5676/attachment.pgp