Need separate folders for "content locations", not merged.

[jof]

For browsing by folder, what I need is for each of the "content locations" in the Media server settings to have their own separate "folder" near the top level rather than having the contents of all of them merged under "Folder", like this:
>Music
-->Folder
----><content location 1>
----><content location 2>
----><content location 3>

If I have the following "content locations" in the Media server settings:
1. E:\CD
2. F:\Vinyl

I would like to navigate like this:
>Music
-->Folder
---->CD
---->Vinyl

I guess the best way to do this would be by defining a custom navigation tree view.
I've read in the forums and older documentation that the old <input> tag could do this but no longer exists.
<include>
<tree path='15' />
</include>


My problem with the current merge method is that if I have the "content locations" defined above and
they both have the same underlying folder structure:
<root>
--\A
----\<Artist1>
-------\<Album1>
-------\<Album2>
-------\<Album3>
----\<Artist2>
-------\<Album4>
--\B
----\<Artist3>
-------\<Album5>
...etc.

I may have a CD and vinyl version of an album, e.g.
E:\CD\L\Cyndi Lauper\She's So Unusual\
F:\Vinyl\L\Cyndi Lauper\She's So Unusual\

So, in the Twonky Media Browser, when I look at
Music\Folder\L\Cyndi Lauper\She's So Unusual\
I see two folders merged into one (not good):
All Through the Night
All Through the Night
All Through the Night (Live) [Bonus]
Girls Just Want to Have Fun
Girls Just Want to Have Fun
He's So Unusual
He's So Unusual
I'll Kiss You
I'll Kiss You
Money Changes Everything
Money Changes Everything
Money Changes Everything [Bonus]
She Bop
She Bop
She Bop (Live) [Bonus]
She's So Unusual
Time After Time
Time after Time
When You Were Mine
When You Were Mine
Witness
Witness
Yeah Yeah
Yeah Yeah

I would like to be able to drill down any of my "content locations" separately, e.g.
Music\Folder\CD\L\Cyndi Lauper\She's So Unusual\
or
Music\Folder\Vinyl\L\Cyndi Lauper\She's So Unusual\


I know I could probably solve my problem by moving my folders about or adding ID3 tags but I should not have to (and will not) mess about with my current disk/folder setup or tags. I would like to solve it in TMS.

An alternative free media server does present each added folder at the top level as I've suggested, but falls short in other ways. I do like the scanning speed and custom navigation tree view feature of TMS.

If anyone can tell me how to achieve this, I'd be very grateful (tree view, ini file, or other hack).
If it cannot be done with the current database/view structure, please Twonky developers add some new method (or bring the old method back).

Using TMS v5.1.5.

[jof]

@phibertron,

Thank you very much.
I've just read your thread "Twonky (How to run multiple instances with custom Navtree's)" - http://twonkyforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9408
and tried out the two server instances approach to achieve my separate tree branches.

And it works.

Out of curiosity though, since you obviously know your way around Twonky, do you think it's possible to achieve my original aim with just the single server?

Thanks again.

[phibertron]

@jof

Glad to hear you got the multiple instance working for you in that scenario
It is one way to get it done

I did take a look at what you have/want
and think that there is one way that it might work
But it will involve three major changes
1. putting both CD and VINYL into a single folder
2. reflecting that change in the server.ini
3. modifying the navtree to do all things under the "By Folder" container

If we created the folling scenario
That replaced the following

1. E:\CD
2. F:\Vinyl

to become

1. D:\Music\CD
2. D:\Music\Vinyl

and then in the server.ini we did this

contentdir=+M|D:\Music\

If you had the above, when browseing with "By Folder"
The root return would be

CD
Vinyl

This part would allow for keeping the two types seperated
in that by clicking on CD you would see only sub folders of CD
and not those of VINYL, and vise versa

But this doesnt help us with the other things one would want
like the by title, genre, etc.
But I think we can attempt to make those usable inside of the by folder container
the problem is that, whatever we do, will appear for each sub conainter
in what I like to call the "Department of Redundancy Department"
which manages the "American Soccer Association of America"

For ex:
Here is the default container for by folder

Code: Select all

<container name='byfolder' id='music/folders' class='object.container.storageFolder' createClass='object.item.audioItem.musicTrack'>
	<container buildon='res' createClass='object.item.audioItem.musicTrack' class='object.container.storageFolder' />
</container>

If we did the following just as an example

Code: Select all

<container name='byfolder' id='music/folders' class='object.container.storageFolder' createClass='object.item.audioItem.musicTrack'>
	<container buildon='res' createClass='object.item.audioItem.musicTrack' class='object.container.storageFolder' >

		<container name='alltracks' createClass='object.item.audioItem.musicTrack' class='object.container'/>

		<container name='artist' class='object.container.person.musicArtist' createClass='object.item.audioItem.musicTrack'>
			<container name='allname' createClass='object.item.audioItem.musicTrack' class='object.container' />
			<container buildon='upnp:artist' class='object.container.person.musicArtist' createClass='object.item.audioItem.musicTrack'/>
		</container>

	</container>
</container>

Every folder would contain the alltracks and artist containers
If we added more of the other types, it would be even bigger

So from a point being able to make it work, sure we could do something
But I think at present, the two instances is the best solution for you
Way less headache, and tweaking of configs to do the above
Not to mention the huge xml file being sent to you over the network
each time you wanted to browse through the folders
It would work, but...

Lets hope for the best with 7.x

[jof]

phibertron,

Thank you so much for your reply.

Unfortunately, your step 1 (moving folders) is where I refuse to budge (partly for technical reasons and partly out of principle). I did wonder if you could use shortcuts in the contentdir to link into several folders but that didn't work (with windows shortcut links at least) - that would have been a nice simple solution.

As you say, I think that the two instances is the best solution for me. Since I've already set it up, it's easy to use and I can't see a downside. It was an inspired idea. I can't thank you enough for coming up with it.

Cheers

[phibertron]

@jof

I agree, things could be a little bit easier if the win32 versions of twonky supported symbolic links/junctions
Even of they did, it wouldnt solve the whole problem at hand
but it would have made half of it a little easier

Your welcome
One downside, is that, it might not be the best choice for people on limited hardware resources
Another downside would be that If and when you upgrade to a newer version,
you'll have to repeat the process of creating the two instances
Lastly, if one is not comfortable in the command line, and or editing of configs,
they have no way to do this from the gui.

Hopefully someday we'll see major changes in how the navtree works
but until then at least we have a couple of scenarios in which we can leverage

[jof]

I must say, I don't look at this forum very often.
But what's the general feeling around here?
Do the Twonky developers seem to read the forums and introduce new features to help with people's problems or are they a law unto themselves?
Are they responsive to requests?
After all, it's not like this is freeware/open source.

[DaemonBeetle]

Given my experiences, I'd say they're listening to what people want - adding those features is always going to be the hard part. I've already seen a few changes that have made my experience better.

Of course, if you automatically assume that open source == great and closed source == bad then you've already made your mind up

[phibertron]

I'd say that there are people at twonky watching and listening

It appears, they are doing there best to fix existing/current bugs
while not trying to introduce new ones, which is a dance of its own

In my opinion:

The jump from 4.x to 5.x was a big change in the code

The change from 5.x to 6.x, looks more like cosmetic/performance/compatability change
in that there really werent a whole lot of new features added,
there is just a lot of tweaking going on in the versions
(from an end users perspective)

But we all know Rick does his best for us when he can

[jof]

I'd say that there are people at twonky watching and listening

It appears, they are doing there best to fix existing/current bugs
while not trying to introduce new ones, which is a dance of its own

Sounds good.
So, Twonky developers - could you please give us some means of making each of the "Content Locations" separate in the "By Folder" view.
(Then, also adding a "merge" tick box to reproduce current behaviour might be good for some instances - options are good.)

[parnott]

Have you tried the following, which I believe used to work in prior versions.

1) Move your CD and Vinyl directories down one directory level on their respective drives so you have something like-
E:\Music\CD
F:\Music\Vinyl

2) Then share E:\Music and F:\Music

I have not tried this in recent versions so can't say if it still works.

[jof]

Thanks parnott. I think your solution would work.
However, you may think I'm being petty, but as I said in my first post:

I know I could probably solve my problem by moving my folders about or adding ID3 tags but I should not have to (and will not) mess about with my current disk/folder setup or tags. I would like to solve it in TMS.

I really don't want to add extra dummy folders just so that TMS works because this would mean I'd have to re-configure everything else to work with the new folder structures. Since it's only TMS that gives me a problem, I would like to fix it here.
It's OK if TMS does not help me in this respect as I have the "multiple instances with custom Navtree's" solution - it would still be nice though.