On 2 May 2007, at 19:55, Luis Villa wrote: > On 5/2/07, BSAG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not quite sure how dropping files would work. You could either >> store the file path on the local machine, but then that would break >> if you accessed it from another machine on the server. But I agree, >> it would be really cool. > > Two options pop to mind: > * actually upload the file to the 'local' tool (presumably joyeur has > some functionality for this) and then sync to the server; download > then looks like downloading any other file from the web. Plus: > machine/location independent, which would be incredibly awesome. > Downside: presumably lots more bandwidth/disk demands; have to > remember to upload the file back up to Tracks once you are done > working with it; potentially difficult to do in joyeur.
I'm not sure how Slingshot handles that. You could, I suppose, store the file as a binary blob in the db. If you were offline, this would be stored in the local SQLite3 db, then it would be shunted to the online db on sync. That would indeed be available anywhere you had access either to the online server Tracks or your offline Tracks. Very convenient, but as you say, bandwidth and/or db size would be limiting. > * just use a 'file:///' path. Pro: simple, never have to worry about > re-uploading files, reliable (if you only use one machine per action > (per context?)). Con: pretty useless if you have to use the file from > more than one machine. Yes. > I think the utility of the 'file:///' approach probably has a lot to > do with how people work- I'm guessing that for most people, each PC > they use Tracks with maps cleanly to one context (i.e., things in the > work context get done on the office PC; things in the home context get > done on the home machine, etc.). Hmm, not for me ;-). There must be other people who work from multiple locations, and who have their work life bleeding into their home location and vice-versa. > But that is just a guess, and still > limits you whenever you need to switch machines for some reason. Note > that this isn't any *worse* than the current no-files-at-all > situation, so maybe it makes sense as an intermediate step, but still, > not ideal. That's true, though it might catch people out if they assume that their files *might* be available, and then find that they aren't. > I'm sort of joking about replacing my file manager, but sort of not- > if people can replace all their traditional paper files with GTD-style > filing systems, no reason why Tracks couldn't become the primary > interface to all the non-media files on my PC if the technical/design > details can be worked out. You'd still needs something for reference files or archived stuff which isn't currently active, though I do understand what you mean ;-) cheers, bsag -- but she's a girl - the weblog of a female geek http://www.rousette.org.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Tracks-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss
