Appetite for adding standard methods to Tag interface?

[Lukáš Lalinský]

My personal preference would be to remove the Tag interface from 2.0, but
we can just add more fields as well.


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Stephen F. Booth <me at sbooth.org> wrote:

> I think this is a good idea for TagLib 2.0 because as you mentioned those
> tags are well known.
>
> On Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
>
> Because TagLib maintains binary compatibly within the major version and
> because the Tag class accessors are virtual, no new fields will get added
> to it. If you want generic access to tags across all support formats, use
> the PropertyMap API.
>
> Lukas
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Adam Szmigin <adam.szmigin at xsco.net>wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wonder: is there any appetite for adding more 'standard' getters/setters
> to the Tag class?
>
> For my own personal use, I would specifically be looking at album artist,
> disc number, total tracks and total discs.  To me, these seem sufficiently
> widely-known concepts to warrant having their own dedicated methods.
>
> What is the driver that determines whether methods are added, or whether
> fields are only available from a property map in the Tag class?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Adam Szmigin
> ______________________________**_________________
> taglib-devel mailing list
> taglib-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/**listinfo/taglib-devel<https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/taglib-devel>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> taglib-devel mailing list
> taglib-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/taglib-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> taglib-devel mailing list
> taglib-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/taglib-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/taglib-devel/attachments/20130611/de131453/attachment.html>