If the system is moving to an sqlite back end, would it be advantageous to just instead store the files as blobs in the database? I understand that this would bloat the size, but no more than an auto copy would. Well, actually, I understand that an sqlite3 database does grow significantly larger than its constituent data, but I would hardly think it would get out of control for sets of JPEG and PNG images. You could even encode the images in base 64 in a specific tag for the xml, which would allow individuals to share image sets much more easily.
Anyway, I'm not strictly promoting the idea, I was just throwing it around. On Mar 2, 7:31 am, Patrick Kenny <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings, > > What do people think about a feature for 2.0 that automatically copies > any added image or sound file to the .mnemosyne directory by default? > This could eliminate confusion by users without signficant computer > knowledge about relative paths, and could help them back up their files > more safely. > > I've been wondering this lately after trying to explain to some novice > computer users the idea of a "relative path." > > Would this interfere with anyone's current workflow? > > Regards, > Patrick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
