Folder Sharing system

[Saruman]

Hi all

this is my first (or second I don't remember) post in dc++ forum , but I know it from 2 years. First of all compliments to all developers for their great work!

and after only a suggestion that can be useful. I'm sharing three folders with the same name, yesterday i tried to download my list and i've seen that dc++ auto renames folders adding a,b,c... at the end of folders with same name. so can be implemented a feature that "adds" subfolders under folders with same name? I know my english is bad so i make an example. supposing i'm sharing 3 folders named "share" now dc++ renames them in filelist share,sharea and shareb, else if subfolders of the three dirs were "added" we can have only one folder "share" in filelist with inside it the subfolders of the three "share" dirs. I hope You've comprended

Byez all![/b]

[cyberal]

possibility to make virtual folders would be really nice.. especially for us bigsharers.. would be neat to be able to share all tv-series in one folder for example.. despite that they are located on different hdd's.

The possibility to add multiple folder at once would ofcourse be required too.

[GargoyleMT]

I've taken note of this suggestion before. This feature request touches on / embodies the same idea:

[ 842919 ] Assign virtual paths to directories in share

[cologic]

This kind of functionality doesn't belong in DC++, but rather in the filesystem itself: the organization suggested would benefit me as the user of the system as much as it would random, pseudoanonymous strangers from the internet browsing my files.

These two programs facilitate such on MS's only filesystem worth using.

[cyberal]

thanks col, real neat!

[Wisp]

i would like a way to enter a description of the filelist or a map/file, so that when a user downloads a filelist, there is a textbox or whatever with a description, in that way you could explain things about the shared files (like "the files in dir xyz are tv shows that i recorded two months ago", "the file movie.avi uses the xsda codec which you can get here at the url www.xsda.com", "in this map there are episodes from series x, contact me if you have episode 23a in good quality")

anyway you get my point, since we have xml filelists, this should be easy to add in the <description> tag of a file/folder i guess

[Twink]

This kind of functionality doesn't belong in DC++, but rather in the filesystem itself: the organization suggested would benefit me as the user of the system as much as it would random, pseudoanonymous strangers from the internet browsing my files.

These two programs facilitate such on MS's only filesystem worth using.

These however dont let you merge two folders (well from what I saw), say I have two drives full of movies, I could share them under one folder in dc++, however to be honest it might not be a great idea just to have one huge folder full of lots and lots of files. But basically my point was that this feature doesn't really belong in a file system/ os (unless you start talking raid or similar which is a different matter) as the os would still have to know which hdd/folder each file is meant to be in.

[Wisp]

I think virtual folders would be a great feature, a lot of ftp clients already have it

i have labeled a lot of maps in dutch, when i share it, people don't reconise it

i have also a lot of folders spread over multiple drives, which could be merged to one folder

[cologic]

however to be honest it might not be a great idea just to have one huge folder full of lots and lots of files. But basically my point was that this feature doesn't really belong in a file system/ os (unless you start talking raid or similar which is a different matter) as the os would still have to know which hdd/folder each file is meant to be in.

As you point out yourself, simply merging the contents of two directories may not produce a particularly well-organized share. More broadly, though, how doesn't this belong in the file/operating system, and how is using symlinks as I suggested fundamentally different than RAID (yes, it's a very different implementation, it doesn't produce a single logical volume, it doesn't provide redundancy or striping, etcetera. I know what RAID is) in terms of whether it belongs a lower layer than DC++?

I provided a specific reason it works well to treat them similarly (don't just organize for others' benefits. Organize for yours.); why might one specifically dislike it, without resorting to the handwaving in your post? You state that it's because "the os would still have to know which hdd/folder each file is meant to be in"; well, sure, that's how it implements symlinks, and the RAID controller must know how it's distrbuted data across the drives. Again, what's the fundamental difference?