Collection View Split

[Jeff Mitchell]

Ian Monroe wrote:
> On a slightly-unrelated note: I think Amarok could perhaps have some
> smarts regarding what to do with Nepomuk vs. Local Collection. Users
> shouldn't have to understand the distinction. I would kind of want to
> see how distros actually use Strigi and such, so this is something to
> think about post-2.0 IMO.

I'm interested to...it'd be interesting to know how much emphasis can be 
put on Nepomuk services, or if most distros are shipping with Strigi 
disabled by default.

On another slightly-unrelated note, I'm also still strongly in support 
of allowing multiple local collections for a number of reasons*, and I 
don't think it'd be that difficult, but that can also be post-2.0.  But 
it might be something we want to think of if we're mapping out new 
database schema ideas so we don't have to modify it after 2.0 comes out.

*Here's just one of them: dynamic collections was a great feature in 
1.0, but to me it'd be a lot more intuitive if you could for example 
define a collection on a removable hard drive (Solid + path providing a 
UDI for detection of whether it's currently there or not) and simply 
showing or not showing that entire collection vs. having tracks appear 
or not appear in a single massive Local Collection.

Bonus: when you have, metadata-wise, the same tracks on two devices (for 
instance, FLAC on your local collections, and MP3s on your media player 
that's often connected for charging or transfer), whereas Amarok 1 would 
display two tracks and you'd have to wonder which one you're picking, 
having the top-level be a specific collection would make it simple to 
pick the right one that you want to listen to after you've done a search 
for the track.  I've run into this issue myself, and I know of others 
that have as well.

--Jeff