Amarok 2.0 mysql dump

[Ian Monroe]

On 6/7/07, Stuart Neill <stuart.neill at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> This would be my top feature request. While Amarok copes admirably with a
> track by Artist X in a compilation album, for a collaboration album by
> Artist
> X & Artist Y the context for the artists is not maintained.
>
> Providing this in a proper fashion would probably require an intermediary
> track-artist table between the track and artist tables. If it is thought
> that
> this would be too great an upheaval to the database structure, then
> allowing
> for three? artist fields in the track table would probably go a long way
> to
> providing the functionality required. I know that flac and vorbis tags
> allow
> for multiple artist tags.
>
> I would personally be happy if all that was achieved was a collaboration
> sub-section which looked very much like the compilation sub-section.
>
>
> My other feature request would be to add album_date to the album table. I
> have
> a number of "greatest hit" type albums where I tag the date of each track
> to
> the original release date. For these albums, I am then forced to put the
> album date into the album_name field. The way Amarok currently deals with
> this leads to some slight oddities. The situation could be improved.
>
> --
> Stuart Neill


Your going at this from the wrong direction. The database is mostly a
cache of what is stored in the tags of music files. You can't add multiple
artist support in the database before there is first some sort of way of
storing this in the music files. And then there has to be a user interface
for it. I can't imagine how it would work without some sort of hack that
assumes commas seperate artists. Adding
support for it in the database is really the easiest part and could be done
easily in the future.

The exceptions to "database is a cache" are labels and statistics, but users
don't expect such information to be transfered to other players.

I really don't see the point of knowing when a greatest hit album was
released. album_date sounds like bloat to me. And similarly, the database
isn't the place to start thinking about it.

Sorry for the thread hijacking Nomad!

Ian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/attachments/20070608/b5aa5127/attachment.html>