Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: ID3 database browsing
Re: ID3 database browsing
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:02:23 +0100 (BST)
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:56:01 +0200, Linus Nielsen Feltzing <linus_at_haxx.se>
>>I really want an ID3 database in Rockbox, but we need to find a decent
>>solution that doesn't slow down the browser too much, eat up all RAM, or
>>drain the batteries due to extensive disk access.
> I guess I don't understand the need for this. Assuming a well organized
> file hierarchy, what additional info would an ID3 browser bring to the
> With >8000 files on my 80 gig machine I've never felt the need for
> anything more than the simple file browser. What am I missing?
With a well-organised file hierarchy, how do you find a single song, by
song title, if you can't remember the name of the artist, or the album, on
which it is on?
Or how can you browse to find a song that you know was released in 2002,
but you can't remember the title
> It would probably be instructive to look at how dBase II did it on CP/M
> machines. It would run, albeit slowly, on a machine with 16k of RAM which
> means the application probably had no more free RAM than a JBR. It used
> very tightly packed and compressed index files, one for each searchable
> field in the database. This worked well as long as they stayed in sync.
> Unfortunately rebuilding indices was a frequent, necessary and very
> time-consuming task.
Hmm, good point - we won't be rebuilding any indicies on the Rockbox
player - everything's generated offline by a PC.
> I think a line should be drawn in the sand against any dependence on a
> host computer. The archos should be able to do any database manipulation
> without being tethered to a computer. Requiring a desktop-based
> application would put Rockbox down in the same class with the neuros, ipod
> and all the other crappy tethered players. I have no problem with there
> being a PC application that duplicates what the archos does, only faster.
I disagree. For example, the archos player needs to be connected to a
host PC (to get new tracks copied onto it ...). So we're never going to
be decoupled from all host computer interaction. If one extra step takes
twenty seconds on the host PC (vs. an hour and 50% of the battery if the
Rockbox was doing it itself) then I think we should recommend the former.
Received on 2004-10-14