Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Interface ideas

On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 19:25 +1000, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:37:13PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
> > Possibly I'm missing something, but is there any feature that it (if
> > keeping history) would provide that isn't done by a playlist at the
> > moment? Up until the queue got implemented everyone had to use a simple
> > playlist to get that functionality and it's always worked well for me.
> Playlists don't show history well in anything other than linear play
> order.  That's the only difference I can think of.

A "queue with history" shows the songs already played, the current song,
and songs that will be played in the future; which isn't really
different to how a playlist (non-shuffling) works. A queue is linear as
well, unless you are reordering it - I can't really see how it works
better or worse than a playlist.

I'm not against having a queue-source, but of the two use cases the
"lots of music/party" one that uses it can be approximated with a
playlist, whereas the "play a song (or a few) as soon as possible" case
is *very* difficult to do otherwise (i.e. double clicking on the new
songs just as the old one is finishing). I think we could have both in
Rhythmbox, as long as we make them distinctly separate (by not calling
them both a queue for a start).

> Hmm.. history is just an automatic playlist with time last played < 1
> day ago.  I guess things might get a bit weird if you start
> playing songs from it, though.

As I mentioned in my post a bit earlier about the Automatic Playlist
stuff I'm doing, that should be possible shortly (sorted by decending
last play time, limit to N songs). Hopefully that kind of thing will
prove to be pretty useful to people.

It won't actually be correct if a song has been played twice recently,
but that shouldn't be too much of a problem for people. A proper history
could be made as a "magic playlist"/source which gets the song added
when it starts/end and shorted to some number of songs. I reckon that
the former would be fine for most people, and would mean that you don't
have to add more code to the application.


James "Doc" Livingston 
If at first you don't succeed, remove all evidence you ever tried 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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