Re: [Gramps-users] Media not a part of the database?

[Benny M. <ben...@gm...>]

2010/5/30 Juliusz Gonera <jg...@gm...>

>  Benny Malengier wrote:
>
>  1. A new file metaformat which would contain the database files and
>> media files.
>> 2. Or simpler, a project file and a directory with all the data, e.g.
>> name of the file: my_family_tree.gramps
>> name of the directory: my_family_tree
>> (both in the same path)
>>
>
> I'm not in favor of this. It might be useful, but it is a lot of
> complication in the code for little gain.
>
>
> Why would the second option be complicated? It's enough to provide an Open
> file dialog instead of the Family Tree manager. Then, instead of having two
> Quit options (Quit or Quit abandonning changes), we would have only one
> option (asking if we want to save changes on exit, like in other programs)
> and a Save option, to save the changes whenever we want to.
>
>
Gramps does not save files, it  saves in a database. Showing a database as a
file is something that only works for minisql, not with the systhem gramps
uses, so the present format is a _technical_ limitation connected with the
database we use. We are much simpler than requiring users to set up a
postgresql of mysql database, but more complicated than a file.


>   Some things here.
> *Some people set their database location on an NFS share, and can work on
> different computers like that. This works provided that the bsddb versions
> on the different computers are compatible, and the same Gramps version is
> used.
>
>
> And what about media paths? Can I point them to NFS?
>

You should have all your media files as relative paths. As to NFS, in unix
everything is mounted, so there is no difference.


>
>
>   *You can open/save a family tree from a different place via the command
> line. So it is possible to create .desktop files per family tree. The main
> reasoning to stick with the current layout is simplicity. The average Gramps
> users is not a PC-guru, so it should just work. For jour use case where you
> give 8. steps, I can give you this:
> 1. I export the family tree to XML Package.
> 2. My mother clicks on the file
> 3. She makes the changes.
> 4. She exports the family tree.
> 5. I click the xml file
> 6. with manager I change the file name and delete the old one
>
>
> It can be a solution, but I would say that the average MS Word user or
> Photoshop user is also not a PC guru, but they somehow grasp the concept of
> files and projects.
>

Well, as said, that is because what they save are files. In MS Word it is
actually a zipped format with the xml and the other objects. Gramps does not
save in a file though, trying to make it seem like we do happened in version
2.2.x, and created many problems.
With the family tree manager we avoid confronting the user with the
complexity of a database, but we do offer them all the advantages: atomic
commit, fallback/rollback. Try to jank out the power while writing a word
document and do the same with gramps. Gramps will have no problem at all
_ever_ with power loss. You roll back to last atomic commit.

Benny


> --
>
> Juliusz Gonerahttp://juliuszgonera.com/
>
>