From: BlueChip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:55:38 +0100

>>If there is a well documented pre-existing standard that offers the
>>functionality we desire - I can see no reason to invent something else.
>
>The reasons would be: minimal memory use and minimal CPU requirements when
>doing lookups.

Yes, if the process is memory hungry and/or overly CPU intensive, then that
would be a good reason to reinvent the wheel ...with perhaps a few less
spokes, but with a matching air valve if possible? (don't you love
extended metaphors - lol)

>>Adding itunes support sounds like a clincher to me.
>
>Uh sorry for being an itunes cluebie, but in what way can a dataabse with
>artist names, album names, track names etc have "itunes support" ?

I quote the mail to which mine was a reply:
"The apple ipod database format is very well documented. Why not use
that? Then people who use itunes can also benefit from this... -eric"

I have no idea at all about itunes and personally have zero use for it - I
couldn't even tell you if such a thing is available for the PC, or if it
just a MAC-thing.
What I do know is that a LOT of people use it, and guess that they would
probably be very pleased to have Rockbox "link up" with itunes in a way
which is beneficial ...as is suggested by -eric.

BC,

PS. What is a "cluebie"?

_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
Received on 2004-10-13