Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Re: Monkey-media and library backend

Jorn Baayen wrote:

>Browsing some of the gnomesuport RB forums it's very cool to see so many
>people interested. However, 'just' taking over the project without any
>gtk/glib experience is not going to work. The rhythmbox code in itself
>is not the easiest thing in the world, and then gobject also requires
>getting used to - if you just dive in fat chance you would a) not get
>the big picture b) not understand much at all c) mess everything up.
>I am willing to function as project 'leader' for the coming couple of
>months, as in reviewing patches, helping out setting up a new
>architecture, giving advice, etc. I don't think I would code myself
>though, or organise things - just canal stuff. And then once I see some
>of the new developers found their way I will just pass on the job.
That's great, one thing the discussion was lacking was someone with 
previous experience of the project who can say things like 'had that 
idea, won't work because....' Having you onboard 'just' as a project 
leader is something that we will need.

I'm aware that the project is quite complex, in terms of Glib / GTK+. 
While I have little experience of either technologies, I have a fair 
amount of OO programming expericne in C++ and (gasp!) VisualBasic (I 
know, it's horrific, it's a terrible secret to have but it does have a 
varely similar callfack system to GTK+). I've also used straight C for 
quite a lot of programming, so there's some experience there.

In fact, I've spent a reasonable amount of time this week reading up on 
GTK+/GLib/gstreamer/musicbrainz, and well as looking over the src code 
of monkey-media and (net)rhythmbox, and will probably continue that over 
the weekend / next week. Hopefully then I'll be in a reasonable position 
to see what needs doing from a architectural/technical point of view.

>I read sisob's UI page, I quite like what's up there, apart from:
>1 - these checkboxes just need to go
>2 - not being able to queue (related to 1 ofc ourse), but this is
>something very major for me. While the RB head UI is a mess, I kinda
>liked it because I could play directly from the lib and queue easily,
>both at the same time. A 'current playlist' view might work, however we
>should also have a 'queue' (context)menu item then.
Sounds sensible, I think the combination of a 'current playlist' and an 
'enqueue' context menu option should sort us out.

>3 - we need an easy search ui (first search result should be selected
>also, and pressing return should start playing it - a la xmms)
Yes. The search/filter box (whatever you want to call it) should 
intelligently filter both the artist and album views. So if you type in 
a word that matches an artist, it will highlight that artist in the 
artist list.

>4 - the source selector needs some way to indicate which source is
Well this is basically the 'current playlist' is it not? If now, we 
could highlight the appropaite souce in some way?

>I'm not going to go back into that myself though, I just wanted to touch
>the subject. The UI here would probably be very cool already.
Glad to have you involved again!



>sön 2003-04-06 klockan 20.02 skrev Dave Rigby:
>>Hi rhythmbox developers,
>>In case you didn't know, a numbr of people have become interested in 
>>getting involved in rhythmbox, and trying to get development going again 
>>- see the forum threads below:
>>While historically there has been a lot of disagreemenet in UI, etc I'm 
>>more interested in the core features, such as net radio, system 
>>notification stuff, tag editing, etc. Discussion has been made about how 
>>to approach 'unfiying' the split, and in particular the relative states 
>>of the net-rb, rb and monkey-media HEAD branches. We were wondering if 
>>anyone could give some idea of the relative states of these three 
>>branches, in terms of:-
>>1. Library backend - People have said that rb CVS has quite a mature 
>>backend, how true is this? what features does rb have over net-rb?
>>2. Monkey-media - The HEAD cvs has support for a xine backend, what 
>>other changes does it have compared to the snapsot in net-rb? What 
>>changes has the snapshot in net-rb had done to it?
>>I want to steer clear of the UI issue for now, but as a general point if 
>>people wanted to change the rb HEAD to an interface similar to net-rb 
>>(discounting the additional features that net-rb currently has), how 
>>difficult to you think that would be?
>>While I can see from the Changelogs what files and routhly what has 
>>changed, In these points I'm interested in the general changes made, as 
>>well as changes from a technical point of view (class restructuring, etc)
>>Many Thanks
>>Dave Rigby
>rhythmbox-devel mailing list

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]