From: Dan E. <da...@so...> - 2012-05-18 15:23:05
|
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 18:30 -0400, Michael C Tiernan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > I was basing my comments on the current Gramps > > philosophy that we don't store media files within Gramps. > > Your statement here clarified a whole lot of my questions about the way > Gramps handled media. :) > > My only contribution to this conversation is that, currently, the way > *I* am doing it, requires an extra copy of every media file. > > When I have to put a [doodad] into the Gramps gallery, I make a copy of > it into a media structure under Gramps then tell Gramps where to find > it. This allows me to work with the original file in any way I want > without affecting what's stored in Gramps.[1] > > With that said, I'd prefer Gramps was not a *management* tool for > Media, only a repository. I'd prefer (based on current modus operandi) > that Gramps allow me to click on and select, an item, regardless of the > type of file and have Gramps inhale the file in binary format (i.e. > don't interpret it) and store it as one glob internally. If I want to > replace that item, I can either delete it or replace it (which is > delete and reload). > That's kind of how I would envision it. Gramps itself would be able to inhale (good word, by the way!) any file, and then people could write binary handler extensions for displaying the various types of binary data in reports, on the screen in various views, playing them (digitally recorded interviews?) etc. In addition to showing/playing files, handlers could provide mechanisms for binary citation. For example, if you drop in a family or group photo, a picture manager extension would let you identify things and people by their locations in the photo. Meanwhile, the basic Gramps database program just stores the binary data and associates it with various other database objects (persons, events, etc.). > [1] That's the crux of the discussion in my mind. "stored in" verses > "referenced by" is the difference between the two operational > paradigms. I expect Gramps (or any software package) to be a > _*repository*_ of the information. I don't care if it can manipulate it > just hold it for me so I can display/print/view it in a report or > delete and replace it. I think it make sense for some programs to manage just a collection of references, but Gramps has a different purpose. The scope of Gramps' "mission," if one could call it that, goes well beyond the person's computer on which Gramps is being run. The various data and associations that the user enters--including media--into Gramps is not like the temporary notes of a project or something to share and think about "in the moment." That kind of stuff is what social networking is for. The stuff people put into Gramps represents work that a person wants to preserve and pass on. > > Of course, YMMV since I'm a novice at all this. :) (Just opinionated.) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel |