Just a me-too-please! This Zeroconf idea sounds like a great one! It would have some kind of server daemon? Or would it be an instance to instance thing? I think I heard iTunes has such a feature but both clients have to be running which isn't so useful for multiple users on one box.
Antony On Jul 18, 2011 7:25 PM, "Eric Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Atte André Jensen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But are there any drawbacks to this strategy? Would it work with my large >> collection of old photos mounted from an usb drive into ~/photos (the >> library location), and what would happen, when that usb suddenly is not >> mounted when the laptop is away from the usb drive? I realize I won't have >> access to the photos when the usb is missing and that shotwell would >> probably report those as missing... >> >> The plan is to mount the same folders on my wifes laptop over NFS. Would >> that work too? >> > > Shotwell would report those photos as missing, although they'd show up again > as soon as the drive/connection was re-established. It's not really the way > we intended Shotwell to be used, but there are plenty of other users who > work this way. > > >> And now a really hacky idea I got: We would like to share the database (the >> tags, edits and ratings), would it be possible to simply share ~/.shotwell >> in dropbox (with a symlink in place pointing from ~/shotwell to somewhere in >> ~/Dropbox)? I guess that would require the directory structure of ~/photos >> to be exactly the same... Which bad things would happen if we both run >> shutwell at the same time, each accessing and updating ~/.shotwell at the >> same time? If not, are there a better way of looking at the same files, >> working with the same shotwell information (edits, ratings and tags) from >> two or more computers? >> >> And finally: how important is it that the shotwell versions are the same on >> two computers (provided it even works with a shared db somehow)? I'm running >> arch on my laptop, she's using ubuntu (10.10 I think)... >> > > This is a very, very bad idea! If you're able to get both Shotwell instances > to run, you would end up with a corrupt DB in the event both were able to > write to it. > > However, I do have one piece of good news -- there has been talk recently in > adding a Zeroconf-based mechanism for sharing between two Shotwell instances > over a local network. Keep in mind this isn't yet being developed, but there > is some demand for it and it's still being discussed. > > - Eric > _______________________________________________ > Shotwell mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
