On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 16:49 -0800, Kevin Fox wrote: > Somehow I think the point of the whole discussion has been lost. We were > talking about what would be necessary to make RB's core support either > sharing one rhythmdb or making rhythmdb's play nice with multiple > instances pointing to the same database. This is needed for MythTV > support. See the other messages in this thread for more details. > > One of Myth's core ideas is that any frontend can access the same data. > Having to rate songs independently on all of your TV's is just too > painful to think about. What you're talking about is what Sri, myself, and others have been discussing: letting multiple applications/instances of RB have concurrent access to the database. The other suggestion, of sharing the db between users, wouldn't be particularly useful to implement. Rhythmdb is actually two conceptual databases joined together: the user data, and a metadata cache. Sharing the former between users doesn't make sense; sharing the latter isn't worth the complexity, because having all the processes reload the metadata when it changes shouldn't be too much of a problem. As Sri said, the current plan is to have a rhythmdb daemon which handles the rhythmdb.xml files (or other backend), and make Rhythmbox (and in future other applications) talk to the daemon via DBus. We get concurrency basically for free, because the daemon would just serialise the requests. Of course there will be plenty of issues to work out, including making the performance not suck, but having a single music database is a worthy goal. Cheers, James "Doc" Livingston -- Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages, it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and goes through their pockets. -- Eddy Peters
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part