Hello,
Wednesday, August 28, 2002, 1:20:50 AM, tom-main@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> When I said I wanted to be able to get the other, non-master, entries I
> meant the offsets. Any other data that might still be contained in
> these non-master entries would be redundent.
Would this really be necessary? I mean, the server software could
answer with the (best-)matching track offset - exactly it currently
does. I don't think we need an extra function to get all linked
entries.
> I could also do manual
> 'eye-ball' work to verify that the master-album's data is correct for
> all the albums I own.
Well, I guess that's then. We can always start a freedb cleanup
campaign - especially if we have a database editing interface on the
website. But this only makes sense when we have the entries linked
properly.
> An initial, partial, implementation wouldn't be too hard, but it
> wouldn't save any space - it would take a little more. It would
> involve:
> (1) Adding the link field to the database. This means changing the
> server code to parse and return this new field. (If the field doesn't
> exist then the album is its own master). I think Yuri was talking about
> adding some new fields, so this new field could be added at the same
> time.
Yes, I think the set number field Yuri proposed would be very helpful.
As for the LINK-field, I don't think we need to give that info to the
users - this can be handled internally without any disadvantages.
- Joerg
|
