More > Media Center 17
Further Client/Server development?
Mars:
--- Quote from: confishy on October 27, 2011, 10:52:54 am ---For me, where my HTPC and server are one and the same it can be a right pain to try and modify the views in Theater View on the server. The HTPC is simply not setup for mouse & kb access. Ideally, I'd like an option - when editing views and connected to a MC Library server - to choose whether to edit views on the server or client.
--- End quote ---
I absolutely agree. For for me it would even apply to points 2 through 5:
--- Quote ---As requested and to be more specific, these are some of the things I missed whenever I tried to manage the library from the client side that still can't be done, as far as I'm concerned:
* Configuring Theater View (So I wouldn't have to interrupt the playback and "steal" the display of the HTPC)
* Configuring View Schemes
* Renaming Files (under library tools) after a tagging work is made
* Assigning Cover Art and saving to the file folder
* Deleting Playlists
* Using more than one hosted library
* User Accounts System with permission for viewing and/or editing data, modifying configurations and settings,...
--- End quote ---
Mars:
I think that more power to the Client would lead to a more "portable" managing system for the library.
In my case, with all the current abilities of the client, plus point 1 through 5 of the requested ones, I would be able to do 99% of managing tasks (not 100%, just in case I forgot some...).
JustinChase:
I think it would help to consider that a "Library" should ONLY include factual information/media, not any opinions, judgements or opinions about that media.
A user profile (call it whatever you want) should include only the opinions, judgements and opinions about the underlying media.
Consider a real library, with books, in a building near you. They don't impose someones opinions of the quality of a book to you. They just allow you to use what is there, and the card catalog helps you find it. Imagine if you walked into the library and they told you that all the 5 star books are in that back corner, and all the 2 star books are on the other side?? What if you thought some of the 2 star books shoudl be 5 star books, so you moved them to that section. No one would be happy. That's what I think we have now.
If the library only included information about where the media is, what it's called, and what resources are required to play it, that should be all the library needs to do.
The profile should have all my opinions and preferences, and should ONLY display the media based on my preferences. I don't think a profile shoud be able to actually manipulate the data at all. Just display information about the media the way I want to see it, but the underlying media should me managed exclusively by the Library server portion. That way, it is the only part that knows where everything is, so when a new profile logs in, the server can present that profile/user with an accurate list of data, that the profile will display according to the user preferences.
I don't need or want to 'customize' the underlying data as a regular user, I just want to see a 'customized' representation of the data. My wife will never share my opinions about music, so if our 'library' insists that Metallica is a 5 star band, my wife will never use this 'library'.
But, since she can't have/maintain her own library, she gets nothing out of MC. She opens it, all the smartlists give results that I want, it's useless to her.
She can't create a library and customize it for her wants, because I can only have one library running at a time, and i use it more than her, so I win; she loses.
If her profile could connect to the media at the same time my profile could connect to the same media (without pre-set judgements), we could both use the software in the way we want.
An administrator account/permissions would be required to set up the "rules" for the library to follow (auto-import, naming convention, storage location, etc), but a "normal" user account could be limited to changing judgements/preferences, but not the underlying media, for example. A "party" user could be restricted from changing anything. You could create several "party" profiles, depending on the type of party you were having, for example.
I'm goint to try to spend some time this weekend going thru the options and separate what I think is a factual setting and a judgement setting, which I think may help illustrate my ideas better.
Mars:
So, to sort a little some of the main ideas exposed here (please, correct me if I'm wrong):
1) A system based on Users/Profiles would add a deep transformation in the usability of MC as a complete Media Home System.
2) The Data in the library could be divided in two types: "Objective" and "Subjective". The Objective fields would include all the referencial and specification facts of the stored media files (i.e. Artist, Album, Name, Year, Bitrate, Filename, ...), whereas the Subjective would refer to user's Personal appreciations or statistical references to each Media File.
3) Only an "Administrator" should be able to modify and access to all the objective data. Levels of modification and access could be delegated to other Users or User Groups.
4) Each User could have its own profile to edit Personal fields (except the autocalculated ones), manage their own Playlists and set Preferences (Views, Playback). A "Default" setting could be choosed and would retrieve the Subjective data, Playlists and Configurations set by the "Administrator".
5) Phisically, the Server would host and distribute the database to the Client computers from which data would be fully managed according the Users/Profile System.
6) This system would probably requiere a seperate Media Center Server.
JustinChase:
--- Quote from: Mars on October 29, 2011, 06:35:21 pm ---So, to sort a little some of the main ideas exposed here (please, correct me if I'm wrong):
1) A system based on Users/Profiles would add a deep transformation in the usability of MC as a complete Media Home System.
--- End quote ---
I think it would, yes
--- Quote from: Mars on October 29, 2011, 06:35:21 pm ---2) The Data in the library could be divided in two types: "Objective" and "Subjective". The Objective fields would include all the referencial and specification facts of the stored media files (i.e. Artist, Album, Name, Year, Bitrate, Filename, ...), whereas the Subjective would refer to user's Personal appreciations or statistical references to each Media File.
--- End quote ---
yes, the data on the server would only be information about the media, where it is stored, what streams are in the container, resolution, etc; the unchangeable information. The values we place upon that media would be separated into the profile, including ratings, views, cover art, playlists, playback settings, conversion settings etc.
--- Quote from: Mars on October 29, 2011, 06:35:21 pm ---3) Only an "Administrator" should be able to modify and access to all the objective data. Levels of modification and access could be delegated to other Users or User Groups.
--- End quote ---
yes
--- Quote from: Mars on October 29, 2011, 06:35:21 pm ---4) Each User could have its own profile to edit Personal fields (except the auto-calculated ones), manage their own Playlists and set Preferences (Views, Playback). A "Default" setting could be chosen and would retrieve the Subjective data, Playlists and Configurations set by the "Administrator".
--- End quote ---
yes, and I would allow users/profiles to share their data (playlists, views, etc) with others also
--- Quote from: Mars on October 29, 2011, 06:35:21 pm ---5) Physically, the Server would host and distribute the database to the Client computers from which data would be fully managed according the Users/Profile System.
--- End quote ---
basically yes. the server does not need to physically host all the media, it just needs to be the part that is aware of all of the media, including the available renderers/zones, and assets, including TV tuners. If the server is aware of everything, and is the only part of MC to have direct access to the media/assets, then it can easily decide who gets to manipulate what, and in what order to serve what to whom.
--- Quote from: Mars on October 29, 2011, 06:35:21 pm ---6) This system would probably require a separate Media Center Server.
--- End quote ---
Actually, I don't think so. Media Center already has all of these parts/functions. it would just need to be divided into 2 parts. both parts would install on a brand new install, and a user would never need to be aware that there are 2 parts, they just seamlessly function together. BUT, you can install the profile part on other machines. it would just ask on install if you already have a server installed on the network, or, better still, it would broadcast to a known port, and the install would look there for the broadcast and just ask if you wanted to use that data library/server.
It would allow anyone to schedule recordings, since they would just tell the server what they wanted to record, and it is the only thing allowed to manage the recordings, so it knows what it can and cannot accommodate, so no conflicts. The profile would not need to have a physical tuner, because the program would not be designed to 'record show' on the local asset, which my laptop does not have. it would just request to 'record show' and the server would send the proper command to the best available tuner, no matter what machine it resides in. they would all record to the same place, because the server would be the only place this spec is set.
I've been thinking about this for years, and have yet to see a request for a client/server functionality that this will not provide/resolve. Not to say there aren't any, but this resolves all I've seen.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version