Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Search Plugin
RE: Search Plugin
From: Elliott, Tim <Tim.Elliott_at_ips-sendero.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:11:01 -0700
I still don't understand why we want to use this tiny processor to do a big
task like a search?
Wouldn't a search capability work much better if you did every possible
search on your PC, and you carried the results around with you on the
To me, I need a search function that works fast, can be done while a song is
playing, and takes nothing (memory or processor power) away from rockbox.
Like I have said before, I wrote a small app to do that a long time ago and
I use the results of that app all the time.
From: Björn Stenberg [mailto:bjorn_at_haxx.se]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Search Plugin
TP Diffenbach wrote:
> > -- database, database, database.
> Why do you think I asked about usage patterns in my poll? ;)
Excellent! See feature request #613544. :-)
> Another problem is working memory: unless we want to use the mpeg buffer,
> we'll need to limit the database to about 20KB of working memory; the code
> can /probably/ be loaded in the 32KB reserved for plugins, but the plugin
> API would have to be extended to allow the manipulation of playlists, and
> the database would probably need additional working memory.
My thinking about an ID3 database is that it should probably be a plugin,
simply because it's a GUI-grabbing function. At least my picture of it (a
tool for searching for tracks and building playlists).
I also think you should waste as much disk space as you want, if it saves
cpu processing and/or RAM needs. We all have gigs and gigs of disk space,
but just a few measly kilobytes of ram to play with.
I don't think you should worry about avoiding disk access, since that won't
be possible anyway. The database is on disk, and must be searched on disk.
Use the disk to its' fullest, that's what it's there for.
-- BjörnReceived on 2003-12-18