[on storing presets somewhere other than library.db:]
| Opinions?
|
| Well I'm a database man by trade so to me it all seems wrong to
| primarily regard the file system as the 'master' and the database
| as a 'replaceable extra' but there you go. As far as I know it is
| just library and preset information stored in the database. Maybe
| we ought to just call it 'darktable.db' not 'library.db' so we don?t
| have fits of conscience about using the database for actually storing
| information
There are a number of problems with storing presets in the same database
as other things:
- some people want to synchronize presets between different machines with
different collections of photos.
- some people have multiple libraries (and thus databases) on one machine
and want to use the same set of presets with all of them.
- some people want to use Darktable purely as a photo processor, not as an
asset manager; they do their DAM outside of Darktable for various reasons.
Doing this today generally requires throwing away the photo database on a
regular basis, which loses your presets too.
In general the filesystem is always going to be the master version of
reality because *that's where the RAW files are stored*. The RAW files
(and XMP sidecars) are reality, everything else is just an index to
them.
As you might guess, I am +1 for storing presets outside of the current
library.db.
- cks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Darktable-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
