Forum Replies Created
Hi Mkayi! Thanks for your lightning-fast feedback!
Anway: I do have one suggestion (or, if it is already there, I did not find it) – why not have the list ordered by colour groups? For list users, the colour groups are kind of useless aren’t they?
Let me post a pic of how I arranged my tabbles:
Look at the tree: what I did is creating a tabble for each color group e putting inside all the tabbles in that group… it takes 2 mins and it works exactly like the solution you asked, plus it’s way more flexible. Give it a try! 🙂
P.S: do you understand what the circled tabbles in the tree mean? 😉
A.
The forum Joels on Software ROCKS – as usual!
while looking for a solution to this keygen thingy, I started a thread on Joels on Software. One guy named Rui came out with a really smart concept, so smart and simple that we didn’t think of it first here and I express my ideas about the benefits of such approach here.
Then conversation goes on, I get moved and can’t help showing our love to our community (that would you reading right now!): here. Of course I had to explain the concept using some capitalistic arguments, but I hope that the "love" comes out of my post
😀 😳 😈peace and love,
A.
"Rinat" wrote:
Maybe I couldn’t understand you, but I don’t wish to imply any of AI at all. Assuming you have not only the file URI stored in your DB, but also the unique hash (i.e. MD5)no we don’t, and this is most definitely not gonna change.
Calculating an MD5 hash, storing it into the db and checking it would totally kill the performance of Tabbles…
it’s our precise goal to keep the db as light as possible in order to have as many files as possible to fit in it, while keeping performances to a reasonable level.To give you an exemple, I work with 10k files db on my Netbook (it uses 100-180MB RAM), and Maurizio with a 40k files db on his Laptop (there it sucks 150-300MB of RAM) and in both cases Tabbles runs decently fast…
"Rinat" wrote: You can implement a kind of brutforce synchronization 😀 Analyze in a previous manner the structure of the first storage and make the same structure on the second, making only new folders and using the files already present on the second drive. All the files which are not in the same set are ignored and untouched.
I get your point: we didn’t really look into that, but it is something that for sure we’ll be asked to deliver at some point. We believe anyway that with the shared-tabbles feature the problem will become much lighter if not neglectable, as sharing the dbs the way we’re planning to do it will already help in finding out what files has to be moved and what not…
"Rinat" wrote: This is the thing I wanted to avoid – to have the same structure.
I see… as said we’re aware of your pain, and we’ll look at what it takes to solve it at some point… it’s just not very high on our priority list. What we’re aiming to right now is having small teams of people sharing their categorizating smoothly on a LAN and browsing through their colleagues tabbles.
"Rinat" wrote:
Well, I will wait for the nested tabbles.The nested Tabbles are there already, check the beta section of the forum!
😈"Rinat" wrote: Oh! Just a little idea – to have predefined Tabble Types: Data (dd/mm/yyyy), Volume N, Issue M – where you should only fill the gaps when tabbling. For example if I want to organize my collection of science articles (this is exactly what I’m trying to do) I also want to set the data of the issue, volume number and issue number – it is enough to make some sortings and selections. BUT also must be the feature to combine those tabbles by selecting the range of numbers (a kind of temporary tabbles, for example – "Volume 10-15" + "Data 10/04/1985-10/02/2000"). I think adding some wildcarding to the combining of tabbles will be very useful. Well… To involve the feature of enumerated tabbles!! This includes all the cases I’ve described before.
Dude, this is a lot of stuff!!! 😀
Let’s try to elaborate it and organize it:
1) the data: a 100% automatical tagging based on data is in the pipeline already… expect it in 2-3 months or something (read on for a workaround).
2) Volume N, Issue M: in case you’re asking for a generic solution, well this is TOUGH STUFF! 🙂 Anyway we can work-around this using the auto-tagging rules: you can create rules to auto-tag a file based on position and/or filename (actually a part of the filename) and/or extension. This way, given that the Volume N is probably always between 1 and 12, if the files are named consistently (i.e.: they’re always named like: magazine.vol._N.blah_blah.pdf) than you can create 12 auto-tagging rules and get all your articles sorted automatically. If the month/year appears in the filename, you can do the same for the data….
3) "Volume 10-15" + "data 1985 to 2000": you’re asking for a logical OR here, and even a pretty complex one. What we have in a pipeline (coming hopefully soon) is a logical OR allowing you to compose queries like "10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15". With this principle you could basically do everything…but it’s not so practical for your purposes.
Consider anyway that once things are categorized properly, you can easily get your files grouped and/or sorted per data, issue n. + other stuff like subject and so on…The bottom line is: we get your point, but creating an archive of articles is not really the main purpose of Tabbles. The main purpose is instead to allow users to arrange eterogenous kind of files (e.g.: cad + ppt + xls + jpg, or .doc + pdf + tiff, or .avi + txt + psd + mp3) where a search engine would fail cause the files don’t contain much text and when they do, the text is not expressive enough to allow the search engine to understand that they’re connected.
To my eyes, you’re looking for a specific solution crafted to solve a precise problem… this is just not where we’re heading to right now. Still you’re very welcome to hang around on the forum and give hints/comments/insults, and you can even do it pa russki in the russian section of the forum! 😀 :ugeek:Ok, time to sleep now… I hope I answered more questions than those I raised 🙂
Andrea
Hello Rinat, and welcome to the forum!
"Rinat" wrote: Hi, I’m a newbie in software forums, so please don’t be very rude, guys 😳
usually we try not to be too rude here, but since it’s Friday night and some of us have been drinking beer, it may well happen that we burp at some point
😀"Rinat" wrote:
What about to have a feature to run a "recollection", for example, you have almost the same sets of files in number of different storages, organized in different ways, i.e. the folder structures are not identical. You made the tabbles for one of them (for example, it’s a work PC). You attach another storage (or run the tabbles db on another PC) with the same files (having back to home PC?), run the feature and… voila – it links all the files from that "home" storage to your previously defined "work" tabbles sequence, even if there is no similarity in folder structure and some files are missing.
It can be done by indexing all the files (or predefined area) by a kind of hashsum, so every file in database is represented by it’s hash (I’m sure you are already using it), so it’s only a matter of time to reindex the predefinded area and to make a link again, even if the files are organized in other way.
I hope this is rather clear. If this feature already exists, please, tell me, cause I couldn’t find it 🙄Well let’s pinpoint a couple of thing: having exactly the same structure and almost the same structure makes a huge difference, since almost the same structure would imply that some sort of AI must understand what fits and what doesn’t… and this is science-fiction 🙂
I guess that your request could be satisfied in different ways:
1) shared database aka shared tabbles: described quickly here and here and planned to be release in 6 weeks or so.
2) syncronization function: this has not even been discussed yet… maybe it will happen but it won’t be soon.
3) a quick and rough solution, if you have exactly the same disk structure on both computers (e.g.: on both you have all the files stored in C: and then you manually copy all the folders that need to be mirrored and place them in a mirrored position ) could be to simply manually copy the tabbles database from one pc to another, time to time. Your tabbles database is in C:Documents and Settingsyour_user_nameDocumentsTabblesDatabasescur_db.tabblesdb. Not very efficient but it works! 😉
"Rinat" wrote: P.S. Also I can help you with all subjects concerned with russian localization.
Thanks a lot, we got that already!
Dobry vecher 😀
Andrea
…one more little knowledge sharing:
found a workaround to link images posted on phpbb from the wiki:
I found a simple workaround that works well (at least) with phpbb: all I did was pasting the link to the picture with the file extension appended at the end of the url, so
https://www.tabbles.net/forum/download/file.php?id=127
becomes
https://www.tabbles.net/forum/download/file.php?id=127.pngEasy, isn’t it?
😈This works with phpbb as whenever you query for a file, it does nothing but returning the file (if you check the source of the page all you can see is the file, a png in this case)…therefore it should in theory work whenever you can have a similar behaviour.
OMG, I’m becoming an expert at this… and I was totally not looking forward to become one!!! 😀
Little update:
I’ve been playing with the wiki a bit after a while… things I did:
1) check FCKeditor again and realized it’s not compatible what our current version of the wiki(latest stable: 1.15.1). We’ll keep using wikEd for a while more
2) Enable file uploads! Done by adding $wgEnableUploads = true; at the bottom of the file LocalSettings.php
3) started moving the Tabbles manual onto the wiki.
– How did I do this? Well, I’m not even close to be done yet, but I found a little shortcut to convert a .doc/.docx to mediawiki format: all you need to do is open the file using OpenOffice 3, then click on Export > Mediawiki. OpenOffice will export a .txt file: just open it and copy&paste the content into your mediawiki article… cool, isn’t it?Peace,
Andrea
uh, a USB dongle key would be a no-go right now: the memories of the pain of dongle management are still too alive from my old job…
Plus a dongle key costs some 10$ a piece, it requires quite some development and it’s everything but secure… 😮 😳 Me personally I’d go for a kick-ass obfuscator or for one of those tools that do "virtualize" a part of the code (this sounds like the smartest thing!) but this is 95% up to Maurizio as he’s the one he’s gonna fight with the tool/code/compiler, and some of those solutions might not work at all with the technologies we’re using (.net and/or F#).
I’ll keep you guys posted by the way… :ugeek:
"rasty.g" wrote: I think It’s at least quite time consumpting to tag file X with each tabble of file Y especially if there’s many of em.
I got ya… we’ll consider that. But be aware that you can already do the opposite, that is selecting all the tabbles and dragging them onto the file, the selection you can do it by selecting the area (click + drag).
P.S.: maybe the "orbit" visualization will disappear :?. It’s not there in the current internal beta… the point is that it’s a loooot of work maintaining it and it looks like few people are using it… We’ll see how many people complain in he next beta and decide democratically if to keep it or not, ok? 🙂
Thanks!