Thread: FrontEnd Benchmarks (Load times and Indexing speed)

Originally Posted by Blue ZX3

And is why we now have a devoted dev team that has been putting large chucks of time to sort, organize, and improve its coding. Let 100's of people (most of which probably were not good coders) add/fix things in your source and lets see how much of "hacked" up souce you end up with...

The comment was to end the cf vs rr argument that was about to start up.....but anyway:
By hack job I didn't mean the coding itself-its actually pretty impressive it does what it can do given the huge limits of vb....i was referring to the way plugins are implemented. Alot of the plugins use external executables in a few cases quite a few of them to "hack together" the functionality they are trying to achieve.

Originally Posted by Blue ZX3

And is why we now have a devoted dev team that has been putting large chucks of time to sort, organize, and improve its coding. Let 100's of people (most of which probably were not good coders) add/fix things in your source and lets see how much of "hacked" up souce you end up with...

I admire your efforts. If it were me (and I've done this three times now), as soon as my code seems like I'm having to hack to get things to work or to add features, that's usually the time I find it needs a redesign and rewrite. I'm not suggesting a rewrite, you can still end up with new code and better design if you re-factor enough. But nothing beats starting from scratch using better technologies with a better design when you have the time to do it. AFAIK, that's exactly what CF is doing with CF3.

Originally Posted by justchat_1

The comment was to end the cf vs rr argument that was about to start up.....but anyway:
By hack job I didn't mean the coding itself-its actually pretty impressive it does what it can do given the huge limits of vb....i was referring to the way plugins are implemented. Alot of the plugins use external executables in a few cases quite a few of them to "hack together" the functionality they are trying to achieve.

Now, that is much better describing what you really meant to say. We have been stretching vb's limit probably for some time now. Yes, some of the plugins do, like for example my RRMedia plugin, uses two main exe's to do its job.

"RoadRunnerMM MediaInfo SQLite (external exe)"

Would like to point out that the sql exe is only used for the large data dumps to the db. all other db operations are done via dll

RRMedia does support external art (image in folder)

FYI, RevFE supports Album art, both in id3 tag and from Folder.jpg files. No skins support it atm though.

Originally Posted by Blue ZX3

"RoadRunnerMM MediaInfo SQLite (external exe)"

Would like to point out that the sql exe is only used for the large data dumps to the db. all other db operations are done via dll

RRMedia does support external art (image in folder)

So was the sql exe used for the indexing or just the dll?

Yes I was aware that it supports folder images....but the test was on tag reading abilities - and the row is labeled "ID3 Cover Support".

FYI, RevFE supports Album art, both in id3 tag and from Folder.jpg files. No skins support it atm though.

There was no cover column in the database which is why I said not yet instead of no.

Just for the dumping of the gathered info from files to the db, as that was the quickest way I had found after trying a few different ways. All queries and executes are done using a dll. I'm not really big in the embeding everything into every song from the same album, kinda pointless in my book, though compilation albums are a slightly diff story.

Originally Posted by Blue ZX3

Just for the dumping of the gathered info from files to the db, as that was the quickest way I had found after trying a few different ways. All queries and executes are done using a dll. I'm not really big in the embeding everything into every song from the same album, kinda pointless in my book, though compilation albums are a slightly diff story.

A lot of songs that are downloaded (through legal means like itunes/amazon, have embedded artwork in the tag. IMHO, looking in a folder for a special filename doesn't sound portable to me. Besides, I've seen tracks that have different artwork and multiple image frames that don't exist in the other tracks (possibly from a single that was done...).

So I guess we learn that the slowness may be attributed to extra things done during the scan? I know nGhost will try to download the artwork from the internet if you have the artgrabber plugin enabled. That would certainly add to the scan time.

Originally Posted by kev000

A lot of songs that are downloaded (through legal means like itunes/amazon, have embedded artwork in the tag)

Yes, I would agree as well, but really think that the extra "legal means" was not needed as that makes it sound like all/most of US forum members only illegally download music. I can and will say that I am not part of the "US" group.

Originally Posted by kev000

IMHO, looking in a folder for a special filename doesn't sound portable to me.

Who said anything about it having to be a special file name in order for it to be used?

Originally Posted by kev000

So I guess we learn that the slowness may be attributed to extra things done during the scan?

Very true..