Tree-linking of files

[ivan]

Let's just start off my saying that I don't know how this would be implemented from a technical point of view, but it would definitely be an extremely useful feature.

So it begins...

You know how the tree folder structure works, right? Folder A has a subfolder B, which has subfolder C and so on and so forth. All of them are linked together, so if you copy folder A to somewhere then you'll be taking B & C for a ride too. Now what if the same applied to files?...

It's not uncommon for files of different types to be in the same folder and be tied together in terms of their content. For example, a downloaded trial of a program and a PDF manual for it, a ripped movie and a cover picture for your media library, a compiled EXE and a ZIP with the source code etc etc As you can see, the potential list of possible uses is a substantial one.

What's the primary benefit of this?

Creating this link between files would simplify file management so much because it would mean that if you want to move 3 related files to some place then you would just need to drag and drop the top root file and the rest would be moved as well. Same with deletion. Additionally, a good (optional) option to have would be to open all linked files if the top root file is opened.

How can linking be executed?

2 ways:

a) Auto: it would bind all files with the same name (but different extensions) together. You would ask: in auto mode, how to determine which file should be root? This would be based on criteria: largest size, certain extension etc

b) Drag-n-drop: select a file, drag and drop it onto another file. The dropped file would be the branch and the target of the drop would be the root.

How would it look in XY window?

x
|
|
-- a
|
|
-- b

where x is root file with a and b being branches.

Obviously there is lots more to say and polish the idea and, I admit, it's not for everyone. However, overall, what does everybody think?

[graham]

I think this is one of those ideas which can start to get difficult the more you exploit it. Surely linked files are under your control now - if you consider certain files are linked in some way then you can move them to a purpose made folder and then they will always remain connected for copy, rename or delete.

The problem I see by trying to add some XY code to sort of do this would become heavy and still need the user to make decisions as to what is or not linked so why do it when you already can?

[ivan]

Yes, this idea is a complex one.

Adding a folder for each group of files >= 2 is hardly the solution because that would mean that the directory tree would grow like on steroids. This idea is mainly aimed at people who have general dump folders where all kinds of stuff is put and this is a way to keep things linked together but still in the same folder.

[j_c_hallgren]

Interesting idea, but I don't see how it would improve my file management...and typically, I find that related files for a software product are almost never named consistently so how they would be auto-related based on name seems unlikely anyway.

And in case you'd not noticed, many program installs (and the OS itself) already create such a vast number of folder hierarchies that more wouldn't really be noticeable, IMO.

[ivan]

Interesting idea, but I don't see how it would improve my file management...and typically, I find that related files for a software product are almost never named consistently so how they would be auto-related based on name seems unlikely anyway.

And in case you'd not noticed, many program installs (and the OS itself) already create such a vast number of folder hierarchies that more wouldn't really be noticeable, IMO.

Unless there is another way, only in auto mode files would need to be named consistently but in manual (guessing this would be most commonly used one) they can be named different.

So the more folders the merrier? It's not about quantity, it's about quality. Also, it's easier to drag one file (with attached stuff to it) than a bunch of files all spread out.