2009-08-04, 10:57
1. I was merely pointing out that the data in the 3 current libraries is primarily independent, thus the only reason to join them is convenience rather than to cross-query.
2. We already support file://, and similarly already have URL constructs for rar:// and zip:// and the like. I'm not sure how this helps anything. At a broader scale, the whole idea of which client updates the database for scans etc. is something to think about. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for each client connected to a central db to run checks for new content - this is a role the central server should take, right?
3. I see little point in working on multiple libraries until one has been proven well-defined and working, but don't let that stop you
Cheers,
Jonathan
2. We already support file://, and similarly already have URL constructs for rar:// and zip:// and the like. I'm not sure how this helps anything. At a broader scale, the whole idea of which client updates the database for scans etc. is something to think about. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for each client connected to a central db to run checks for new content - this is a role the central server should take, right?
3. I see little point in working on multiple libraries until one has been proven well-defined and working, but don't let that stop you
Cheers,
Jonathan