From: TP Diffenbach <rockbox_at_diffenbach.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:44:03 -0400

Quoting Owen Sebastian Hofmann <oshofmann_at_amherst.edu>:


> Like you say, there are arguments for and against .lnk files. I like
> the fact that it's dead easy for windows users to create them, but they
> do have icky overhead, and linux users are left in the dust without some
> tool for creating them. I think it would be useful, and I don't think
> it would take up too much space. I think the filename shouldn't have to
> be cached, since when you want to play something, you're spinning up the
> disk to play it anyways.


If our goal is to treat .lnk files tramsparently, as the files they point to, we
have to read the entire file to display it. Rockbox can optionally both flter by
file extension, and display icons based on the extension.

To find that extension, we must read the .lnk, and in a non-trivial manner (read
the header, find the offset to another offset, read past that to get the relative
file name, or find in the second block the absolute name , possibly converting
either name from unicode in the process.)

Then, to "play" the file pointed to, we have to do this all again if we haven't
cached it.

--Tom--
Archos FM has a Rockbox!
Received on 2003-06-09