28 Mar
2012
28 Mar
'12
7:33 p.m.
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 18:31 +0200, Renato wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:35:26 +0200
thijs van severen <thijsvanseveren(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/3/28 Emanuel Rumpf <xbran(a)web.de>
>
> > Am 28. März 2012 05:46 schrieb David Robillard <d(a)drobilla.net>et>:
> > > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 03:27 +0200, Emanuel Rumpf wrote:
> > >> This allowed the SM to:
> > >>
> > >> - tell the user if a certain file is part of any session
> > >> registered at
> > the SM
[...]
if I may add my voice, from a very practical user
point of view,
I agree with thijs. The functionality Emanuel is proposing does sound
very interesting, and it *would* be very nice to have
The mentioned functionality does not depend on a centralized file store.
That's the point I'm trying to make, it's not "complexity that wins us a
bunch of nice features", it's just complexity.
At most what is required for some of them is the session manager know
about registered /sessions/. This is a dramatically different thing
than building a prison for all /files/. While not bulletproof (you
could have sessions on a removable drive), it's not really a problem
because it doesn't impose anything on apps.
I.e. I would
gladly give up some disk space, at least for the present, to have a
solid, functional and wide adopted session manager (like Non seems to
be, except for the last requirement).
Of course those having recordings of several gigabytes won't agree with
me, but again this is just my personal opinion.
Lack of a centralized file store does not mean large files would be
duplicated.
-dr