2014-02-16, 14:27
Okay, preparing for the shift to Gotham some day in the nearing future...
I currently have half-a-dozen clients - Windows, Android, 'buntu Linux and OpenElec Linux. I share most things via a centralised mysql database on my server/NAS. All is good.
Now, I understand entirely that moving to a new version will generate new database tables - hence the need to keep versions in sync.
Just testing my understanding, though...
1. Presumably, the first Gotham upgraded client would generate new tables/schemas (e.g. MyVideos78) and leave the old ones untouched (e.g. MyVideos75)
2. All Gotham clients (subject to them using the precise table names - XBMC_databases/Version_table (wiki)) would then use that new table
3. Any existing Frodo clients would continue to use the previous tables
4. Both sets of tables could be updated independently, but there'd be no sharing between them for obvious reasons
5. Once all clients are on the same later table version, you can clear out the old versions as nothing's using them any more
... yes? It's that last step that I'm thinking about... otherwise, over time, you'd end up with stale dbs and data that's simply taking up space for the sheer fun of it.
(UPnP sharing doesn't work for me as none of the XBMC instances is constantly running).
Thanks....
I currently have half-a-dozen clients - Windows, Android, 'buntu Linux and OpenElec Linux. I share most things via a centralised mysql database on my server/NAS. All is good.
Now, I understand entirely that moving to a new version will generate new database tables - hence the need to keep versions in sync.
Just testing my understanding, though...
1. Presumably, the first Gotham upgraded client would generate new tables/schemas (e.g. MyVideos78) and leave the old ones untouched (e.g. MyVideos75)
2. All Gotham clients (subject to them using the precise table names - XBMC_databases/Version_table (wiki)) would then use that new table
3. Any existing Frodo clients would continue to use the previous tables
4. Both sets of tables could be updated independently, but there'd be no sharing between them for obvious reasons
5. Once all clients are on the same later table version, you can clear out the old versions as nothing's using them any more
... yes? It's that last step that I'm thinking about... otherwise, over time, you'd end up with stale dbs and data that's simply taking up space for the sheer fun of it.
(UPnP sharing doesn't work for me as none of the XBMC instances is constantly running).
Thanks....