Movie Sets Collection Grouping for Video Database Library Custom Sort Order Filters? - Printable Version
+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Development (/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+--- Forum: Feature Suggestions (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Movie Sets Collection Grouping for Video Database Library Custom Sort Order Filters? (/showthread.php?tid=14476)
- nul7 - 2009-08-10 23:09
Thank you! That just made my day!
- da-anda - 2009-08-11 20:54
hmm - how about tagging? Isn't that quite simmilar to this feature, but would be more general for other media. So you could create a tag "Movie Collections" and add a second tag "Alien Collection". After you filtered for "Movie Collections", the taglist could refresh and show all other tags related to items that are tagged with "Movie Collection".
Nested tags would be the nicest thing - but might be a bit more complicated to implement as you probably would need IDs and a reference DB table.
- jmarshall - 2009-08-12 04:10
If, when one selects a tag, it just shows another set of tags, how do you ever get to the videos - only when you exhaust all tags? Seems icky.
Instead, if you click a tag, it'll show all videos with that tag.
Sets in this respect are identical to tags - they just have a more defined behaviour, and possibly have ordering information.
- da-anda - 2009-08-12 10:12
jmarshall Wrote:If, when one selects a tag, it just shows another set of tags, how do you ever get to the videos - only when you exhaust all tags? Seems icky.
Of course you need to have the tag list and the results on the same screen. So maybe on the right hand side a slim "filter" section with tags and maybe some other filtering/sorting options and on the main screen section the results - be it videos, tv-shows, music, pictures - whatever has that tag and whatever media is about to be shown (could also be defined in the "filter" section).
Seems that I have a different view of how a mediacenter/-library should work - or maybe I'm just too much influenced by media- and photo-management tools.
- jmarshall - 2009-08-12 10:35
Yeah, sounds like way too much on screen for a 10" UI that one browses with a remote.
- joelmeans - 2009-08-28 00:16
Okay, I just submitted a pair of patches to implement set support using the above format. The only difference is that you must include the "order" attribute. (Really, I didn't test what would happen if you left it out. It will probably just sort alphabetically, but I would think you would want it in there anyway). One patch does the database and .nfo stuff, the other adds a "Sets" group to the movie overview screen.
How I would like to see this work eventually is to have an option to view sets instead of the constituent movies listed in the "Titles" view. So, for example, instead of this:
you would have this:
and clicking on "Harry Potter (Set)" would take you to a listing with:
I am open to other suggestions for this. It will not be easy to implement with the way the views currently work. So don't expect this to be done quickly unless a dev with greater knowledge than me knows a simple way to do it and wants to.
Anyway, the patches can be found here: http://trac.xbmc.org/ticket/7106, for those brave enough to try it out. And if you do, please report any bugs in the trac ticket.
- indy5 - 2009-08-28 02:59
Would we need a skin to support this?
Can't wait for this to be implemented!
- joelmeans - 2009-08-28 05:07
indy5 Wrote:Would we need a skin to support this?
No, it will work with the current skins (at least it works with PM3-HD). If you really can't wait, grab a copy of the SVN trunk and the patches and go to town!
- jmarshall - 2009-08-29 00:41
Right, carrying on from discussion in the trac ticket, the order attribute complicates the code quite a bit.
Is this essential? I can't think of any case where the order would change between multiple sets that contain the same movie, thus using the sortorder for the movie would do just as well.
1. We already support reordering via the <sorttitle> tag.
2. Most movies will be in zero or one sets only, whereby <sorttitle> suffices.
3. The few movies that may be in more than one set are likely to be ordered in the same way in all of those sets (i.e. ordered by the year of release for instance).
Thus, no need for the order attribute, and "sets" can be treated in the same way as "genres", "directors", "writers", "studios", "tags", and the multitude of other arbitrary ways of grouping things that you may wish to come up with.
This will also allow trivial addition of the "sets" to the listings of movies (so when you highlight "Goldeneye" it'll tell you it's part of the James Bond set.)
If we further restrict it to just a single set per movie (which covers 99.9% of the usage cases) then automatic "stacking" of sets when listing your movies is also very easy to accomplish, though this is doable in the case of multiple sets per movie as well (but IMO is far messier from an aesthetic point of view.)
- openricky - 2009-08-29 00:58
just to play devil's advocate here: wouldn't AVP be "sort order 5" in the aliens set and "sort order 3" in the predator set?