Kodi Community Forum
How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? - Printable Version

+- Kodi Community Forum (https://forum.kodi.tv)
+-- Forum: Discussions (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=222)
+--- Forum: Feature Requests (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? (/showthread.php?tid=124378)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5


- karandras24 - 2012-03-04

Munch Wrote:A sensibly reply. However not 100% of the stuff I download and watch are movies or series. Where does my other media go? Also how often does xbmc scrape it's folders? Only on start up? Because I never shut xbmc down. So will it scrape.

Anyway I am looking at other solutions. To supplement xbmc. This this the kind of stuff I am requesting to be built into xbmc so no need for 3rd party applications will be needed. I am still working on a method but I am thinking something like this.
1. RSS Downloads to download folder not scraped by xbmc.
2. Tv Rename or something similar to move and rename files to a series folder that is monitored and scraped by xbmc
3. Similar app for Movies
4. Similar app for other Files.
5. A app or individual apps to maybe scrape and generate nfo files for series movies and other types(A friend of mine has actually written this app already and it runs as a windows service. Works allot better than any other scraping app out there and is the only app to do documentary episode numbering correctly. He uses Media Browser though but intends to enhance it for xbmc too. The app also moves and renames files. So far it only works for series and documentaries but he intends adding movie support too. He might release it to the internet when it's feature complete.)

In a ideal world step 2-5 would be done by xbmc but it only does a partial job. And the interface is designed the idea of only Movies and Series and not custom points.

you are aware that the devs have stated they prefer a "core" + "addons" approach to XBMC moving forwards yes?

There is an addon that can make XBMC update the library at set intervals or see below.

1,2,3 & 4 are already covered by god knows how many different free apps, can you not just pick one or 3 to do what you want e.g. sabnzb, sickbeard, couch potato, headphones etc, etc, etc? They can even tell xbmc to update the library once the file has been renamed and moved to where it needs to go.

5. Bar the nfo file doesn't xbmc already do this for music, films, tv shows?

What other media do you need info scraped for that isn't included in these? Also is there a website & scraper combo for this missing media? If not who will pay for the domain, hosting, design / build the site, api and scraper?

Just my 2p's worth.


- DejaVu - 2012-03-04

I am setup the same as stoli and XBMC updates everytime Sickbeard, CouchPotato or Headphones notify's XBMC there is a new completed download in the folder I requested it ended in (after it's been indexed/renamed/sorted etc).

You can make categorys in SabNZBd easily enough and make them rename etc. You can even add your obscure downloads via an RSS feed and have them added to a seperate folder away from everything else and still get XBMC to add them to the library.

Reading up in the right places will get you what you want to a certain degree.
IE - Googling "Sickbeard Notifications" (first result, of course).

The main problems you seem to be having is with separate 'types' of TV Show/Movie and the odd weird download, that do not fall into the mainstream categories.

IE
Music Videos' (Seperate Scraper for that).
Porn/Adult (I would suggest not Indexing this if you have kids)
Youtube videos - There's an App for that!

For me, the Genres section of the XBMC Library does more than enough sorting TV Shows/Movies into Documentaries/Comedy/Thriller etc etc.

The only thing I can see that XBMCs Scraper(s) may not do that might be useful for locking kids from watching 'R' rated stuff would be to scrap and categorise them into a Library Section called MPAA Rating perhaps and then given the option to lock anything above PG-13 with the XBMC Master Code. (something that may already exist - I'm not sure as my kids watch everything anyway).

It's not XBMCs or the Devs fault that your requests of it are not met, AFAIK Library Scrapers are 3rd Party Apps (have you checked them all?), a feature request perhaps?)

Some things are more important than improving Library functionality as have been shown so far in the releases of Eden v11, although the new Movies Boxset is a welcomed new edition.

Keep in mind that XBMC is created for the masses and not for any individuals needs, it is however highly customisable (being open source and free) and the things you have mentioned above, I'm sure you can accomplish reasonably easily.

Comparison alert -
MediaBrowser was my original Media Centre software when I thought Windows was the only 'decent OS' but after getting annoyed with it crashing, running incredibly slow, scraping all the wrong information completely, I even started using external programs from http://www.ebrsoft.com for covers and the likes of meta</browser>) for proper scraping!

I gave up and switched to the far superior XBMCLive Ubuntu install and have never looked back.


- sykl0ps - 2012-03-05

Well, not to get into the banter, just to answer the questions about who only or mostly uses file mode:

I've only used it to set up the library sources, easy navigation to make sure whats where. Other then that I've been using library mode exclusively since I started with XBMC at version 8.10


- ashlar - 2012-03-05

Memphiz Wrote:This is definitly shitting on all work which was done by all devs for getting eden rolling. And its a total egoistic attitude. There are a real big bunch of requests by useres which where realised in eden - but as allways "its all unimportant as long as these are not the requests i am interested in".

Ashlar i can say my opinion here like every other forum user too. And when you roll your eyes then it might happen that the stay in a uncomfortable position *like all mothers would say it*.
I'm not sure I get the mother reference, but maybe you mean that if I roll my eyes they risk remaining in an awkward position. I have to say you are probably reading too much in a simple smilie.

In any case, yes, he might have used strong words, but the rest of his message was pretty detailed in his use case.
Also, you want to know something? I don't use file mode. I long for an amply more configurable library mode but I tend to avoid file mode if at all possible.

It's just that, sometimes, during stressful times (such as nearing the release of a new stable version) developers tend to be less patient with users. And while I understand them, I definitely don't understand other users that seem to think that if XBMC is right for them, then it must be right for everyone (I know that the reverse often applies too).

In any case, I just wanted to extend an olive branch because, really, the rolling eyes were not so important in my message. Sorry.


- Ned Scott - 2012-03-05

Grab Ember Media Manager already. The reason XBMC does not do all that built-in is because there's apps that already do that, and it would just add bloat. Might as well add a word processor and photo editor to XBMC as well if you're going to do that.

XBMC can update the library at intervals, or have an app or script trigger a library update when new content is added.

What frustrates me here isn't that you're being critical of XBMC. Being critical can be a good thing. What frustrates me is that you don't seem to have checked to see if what you say is actually true. There's so many add-ons and media managers and download managers out there, and this forum mentions them a ton of times (there's an entire sub-forum dedicated to these tools). There's so many combinations of file names and content types and everything.

It doesn't even make sense to make it all built-in when other people are focused on making those tools, and we're focused on making our tools, and they work perfectly fine as two parts.


- NEOhidra - 2012-03-05

Ned Scott Wrote:Grab Ember Media Manager already.

There are two reasons why people do not use Ember Media Manager i believe - one and two.

The information is changed but in order XBMC to display the new info a manual refresh is needed for each element.


- JustinAiken - 2012-03-05

That is a valid point... For example, I have several hundred DVD9 ISO movies in my library, that I originally added without any video metadata (since EMM doesn't scan ISOs).
Now that T! shows lots of cool metaicons, I've been going back through EMM and manually adding video metadata to each of these movies; it is inconvenient to go back in XBMC and refresh each one individually.

Still, XBMC is the best media player out there, and free, and the OP was being kind of an ass about it :p


RE: How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? - DiMag - 2012-11-06

Munch is entirely justified in voicing his frustration with XBMC's library mode/model, in particular relating to documentaries. Moreover, he is entirely justified in saying that the way XBMC's library handles documentaries is so bad, that a filebrowser mode seems a preferred alternative.

The theory of literature teaches us that at the outset there exists a fundamental typological distinction between fiction and non-fiction, documentaries being the principal non-fiction media type, and that "genres" are there to further classify fiction media, whereas the proper classification of documentaries is person, place and time of reference, and subject matter. To properly handle documentaries you need a database schema which reflects these needs. XBMC hasn't. In this respect it may not be too harsh a judgment to describe its library model as fundamentally flawed in design ---or, at the very least, as severely limited, in the sense that it is good at handling fiction media but incapable of handling non-fiction media.

Why XBMC should be thus limited by design is a mystery to me. Doesn't it employ an SQL-based database? And isn't SQL's very raison d' etre to express any logical relationship by just adding a table and linking it per foreign keys to the existing ones, with no need to redesign the database each time a new logical relationship is discovered? Itr may be that the real limitation factor is not the database itself but the desktop, in the sense that XBMC's skin cannot visualize an SQL-derived report with the same efficiency we have come to express from, say, a spreadsheet. But isn't this another way of saying that XBMC is limited by design?

Incidentally, there are more XBMC orphans than just documentaries (although documentaries may well be the most important ones). XBMC cannot handle, at least not adequately, lectures, ballet, opera, theater performances, and art. (It cannot handle classical music either, but in this, sadly it is not alone.) It even has, let us not forget, no built-in pictures library. To me it all appears as distinct symptoms of the same base ailment, namely a neglect of the database (including its expression on the desktop) component, which has been kept for long out of sight because of XBMC's spectacular success in system integration and media playback. And I think that our respect and admiration for the developers should not hold us back from pointing out to them that the library model is flawed, and must be fixed.


RE: How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? - timdog82001 - 2012-11-06

This thread was 8 months old.

But in response to your last point about not scanning some of those media types...Is there really a scrapable database of opera video? Or ballet? Or lectures, or any of the things you mentioned? Don't get me wrong, it would be great if XBMC were able to scrape info on those things, but first we need somewhere to scrape it from and unless these are all from widely released videos which may be listed on IMDB, I rather doubt there's any convenient all-encompasing source as there is for most movies and tv shows. Out of the bunch you listed, I'd guess that Documentaries is the only truly feasible one in the near-ish future.


RE: How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? - un1versal - 2012-11-06

Its like complaining that xbmc fails because it doesnt scrape any information about home videos I took of my dog, when I use tmdb scraper.

If you want xbmc to scrape information you need somewhere to get it from

So you need a database online + a scraper for that. Its not xbmc's fault that no ones bothered to do a scraper for that or that existing databases are limited to movies and tv shows.

I use filemode because HOME-VIDEOS and the LIKE cannot and WILL NEVER be scrapable otherwise library works just fine for tv show and movies

I dont have a dog anyway.

someone should close this therad and or move it to recycle bin please.

uNi


RE: How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? - DiMag - 2012-11-06

When I say that XBMC has some orphans, meaning first documentaries (and lectures) and secondly great performances and art, I am perfectly aware (a) that a great part of the problem lies with the ---in many ways inexplicable--- lack of scrapable web sites and usable scrapers, and (b) that this cannot be laid at XBMC's door. But I also make ther point that XBMC is severely limited even in world of fully working scrapers. Consider documentaries, for which there is, at present, sufficient (granted, spartan --- but sufficient) scrapable material at sites as thetvdb.com. What perverse logic compels XBMC to categorize all documentaries as a genre of either movies or tvshows, when the theory of literature posits that they are a different type altogether, and not only the theory of literature but also common usage and common sense posit that they be categorized with reference to person, place, time period, and subject matter? What is the purpose of spending an hour or more scraping documentaries only to end up with a flat structure where you can filter everything produced by the BBC but you cannot filter everything relating to Napoleon Bonaparte? And the reason you cannot is not lack or scraped material, but XBMC's reluctance to have its internal database engine pick up and then filter keywords --- the very database engine which, in programs like Thunerbird, is responsible for digging up anything in your vast email storage place? Yes, there is a dearth of scrapers, yes, it is not XBMC's fault, and yes, we shall probably have to live with it for a long time. But XBMC lets us down even if we have enough scraped material on out local disk.


Re: How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? - Martijn - 2012-11-06

Patches welcome.......


RE: How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? - jmarshall - 2012-11-06

Firstly, if they're not tvshows, why are they on thetvdb.com?

Even if XBMC did offer a high-level "Documentary" category, all it would be is effectively a smartplaylist that pointed to a particular source on your filesystem - there's no other way to categorise mixed documentaries and tvshows without a backend to tell us which is which. (I don't believe that thetvdb tells us). And yes, you can do this right now already - it's more work than it should be, but nonetheless achievable just by setting up a smartplaylist pointing to a different source.

Further (and perhaps more preferable) you could tag them as documentaries and then rearrange your library to show them quite separately to shows if you wish. This would allow you to tag documentaries regardless of whether or not they're located in the same root folder. I personally use this to separate out Christmas movies for example.

Again, I agree that it's more effort than it should be, but the magic of SQL nonetheless allows you to do it, even in XBMC's constrained database.

Cheers,
Jonathan


RE: How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? - artrafael - 2012-11-06

OK, you've posted in 3 threads today in the Feature Suggestions subforum regarding this topic. Spamming doesn't make it happen any faster or happen at all. You're obviously on a crusade and you've already stated your case (multiple times). This is an open source project, not a commercial product, so you can contribute code to improve a function that you find lacking.

Food for thought: Comments such as "perverse logic", "must be fixed", "why it is not used is a mystery to me" will not likely endear you to any of the current developers (the very people who actually may be able to do something about improving this function).


RE: How many people only(or mostly) use file mode due to library limitations? - Ned Scott - 2012-11-06

XBMC has two basic types of video:

Episodic content - multiple videos form an entry. We normally call them TV Shows, but anything episodic will work this way

Stand-alone content - single videos that are an entry. We normally call them Movies, but anything stand-alone will work this way.

We have video library tags (wiki), smart playlists (wiki), normal playlists (wiki), custom video nodes (wiki), the option of using file structure but still have metadata, and even profiles (wiki), all that can help filter and separate content info different ways. They are only called "TV Shows" and "Movies" in most skins because that's what most people want, but it's all editable.

Between all this, it should be totally possible now to make almost everyone happy (at least on the XBMC side. Still need scrapers and sites for some of those other things).