On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 12:00 -0400, Daniel Falk wrote: > Probably true, though even designing a spec for that is probably going > to be difficult. I'm not so sure of that. Many of us already achieve it but the solution is not elegant. > - Working offline with photos on a laptop, syncing with a home computer > (which might have been changed by someone else in the meanwhile). No. I strongly disagree. This is a completely different feature/problem than multi-user use. This is remote synchronization and is a difficult problem to solve in much wider arenas than just photos and IMHO, should not be confused with multiple-users-in-a-network use. > - Working in remote locations over the internet Hrm. I'm not sure what you are imagining here, but whatever network protocols are being used in a LAN to access the shared photos and database should work over the Internet. If you are talking about "securely" doing it over the Internet, then again, I strongly disagree that this is the same as the multi-user feature. It's again, yet a completely different feature. > - Working in the same database as another user simultaneously Yes. This would need to be handled. No idea what sqlite's abilities are in this respect, whether it allows simultaneous access by multiple users and/or provides data locking. This might be a good reason why a real (for a value of real that includes real multiple user access) database like MySQL might need to be optionally supported. > I question whether hiding the photos away is the full intent of f-spot. > If that were the case it would make it simpler if the photos were put in > the same place as the database, perhaps even in the database. It would > simplify migration and diminish the possibility of people doing things > like deleting pictures outside of f-spot. Yeah. I have thought about that too. But I don't know if many databases (sqlite especially) really handle blobs all that well. > No. If I had to guess the intent of F-spot based on how it's coded > today, I'd say that you are definitely meant to be able to trawl through > the structure. I agree you _can_. I don't necessarily agree you should or are meant to. > And I, for one, like it that way. Let's assume you're right--that if > you need to trawl through the structure then f-spot is missing a > feature. Well fine. But f-spot will always be missing features. It > just always will. There will always be some cool thing that program X > is doing but hasn't been integrated into f-spot yet. That's what export is for. But I don't really care to argue this point of whether one should be able to or not. I don't really care about it. b.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part