Page 1 of 1

Caching up front instead of on-the-fly?

Posted: 20 Jul 2009 22:14
by MeZelf
I am currently testdriving 8.1 and I read that thumbnails are now created on the fly.
But is there a way of having them created for the full folder when you open a folder?
Haven't found a checkbox for it, unless I misread the text in the configscreen.

Although the thumbs are created fast, I would like to have the program process the files up front.

Re: Caching up front instead of on-the-fly?

Posted: 21 Jul 2009 02:43
by j_c_hallgren
Hi and welcome to the XY forums!

AFAIK, there is no option to change that behavior...it used to be that way and then the typical complaint was that users were frustrated with having to wait for it to finish, so now the on-the-fly solves that...

However, there are times when I agree with you in that having it up-front would be just as well...we'll need to wait for Don to return to see what he thinks.

Re: Caching up front instead of on-the-fly?

Posted: 21 Jul 2009 03:38
by TheQwerty
I had thought of asking for something similar.

I think two commands would suffice for now:
1) Generate All Thumbnails for List = Generate them for the current list and no deeper.
2) Generate All Thumbnails for Branch = 1 but also build them for subfolders.

Actually, a single script command may work better:
BuildThumbnails([Path], [Depth]);

Path could specify another location but defaults to <curpath>.
Depth could define how many levels deep to recurse. If omitted 0 (only the contents of Path, no deeper) is used. And maybe '-1' is build all thumbnails for the path no matter how deep.


And I think this would suffice for now as when Custom Event Actions or whatever Don's calling it happens that will eliminate the need for an option to automatically run them.


EDIT: Now that I think about it you could probably get close to what we want by enabling caching for search results and then using Edit->Show all items in branch with a thumbnail view. So maybe it isn't needed.

Re: Caching up front instead of on-the-fly?

Posted: 22 Jul 2009 20:38
by MeZelf
TheQwerty wrote:Actually, a single script command may work better:
BuildThumbnails([Path], [Depth]);
I tried the short script, but I get the message:
'buildthumbnails' is not a valid script command

Re: Caching up front instead of on-the-fly?

Posted: 22 Jul 2009 20:46
by j_c_hallgren
MeZelf wrote:
TheQwerty wrote:Actually, a single script command may work better:
BuildThumbnails([Path], [Depth]);
I tried the short script, but I get the message:
'buildthumbnails' is not a valid script command
I believe that TheQwerty was suggesting to Don what a possible script command might look like...I'm pretty sure that it's not implemented.

Re: Caching up front instead of on-the-fly?

Posted: 22 Jul 2009 21:37
by TheQwerty
j_c_hallgren wrote:
MeZelf wrote:I tried the short script, but I get the message:
'buildthumbnails' is not a valid script command
I believe that TheQwerty was suggesting to Don what a possible script command might look like...I'm pretty sure that it's not implemented.
Indeed.. I suppose I should have made that more clear. Sorry!

The only thing that might work now is doing a search of the whole branch with caching search results enabled.

Re: Caching up front instead of on-the-fly?

Posted: 01 Aug 2009 15:29
by admin
j_c_hallgren wrote:Hi and welcome to the XY forums!

AFAIK, there is no option to change that behavior...it used to be that way and then the typical complaint was that users were frustrated with having to wait for it to finish, so now the on-the-fly solves that...

However, there are times when I agree with you in that having it up-front would be just as well...we'll need to wait for Don to return to see what he thinks.
Well, I think it is much better now than before. For the time being I will leave it at that.

Re: Caching up front instead of on-the-fly?

Posted: 02 Aug 2009 14:08
by MeZelf
admin wrote:Well, I think it is much better now than before. For the time being I will leave it at that.
Would it possible to make it an option that you could turn on or off?
Having off by default would make everyone happy I think.

Re: Caching up front instead of on-the-fly?

Posted: 02 Aug 2009 15:07
by admin
MeZelf wrote:
admin wrote:Well, I think it is much better now than before. For the time being I will leave it at that.
Would it possible to make it an option that you could turn on or off?
Having off by default would make everyone happy I think.
Yes, possible of course. But I got other things in the pipe currently...