XYplorer Beta Club

Well Don, I said I may have some request of you once I knew the program better, here's my first!

I have a suggestion to make selecting multiple paths easier for the Find Files feature - especially disconnected directories (folders that don't share the same tree branch).

I would like UI access to the "Find Files" "Location:" buffer in an Open dialog box format, with a browse button and an added memo field. The buffer, containing a semicolon separated list of paths to be searched, could be accessed with the memo field, like you do in the "Run Script" dialog box. This would allow users to add paths by browsing and clicking an add button, or typing them in the "memo" field manually.

For keyboard users, a hot-key combination could be used to add the currently selected directory (folder, or path, if you will) from the main window (files and or tree panel), which could then subsequently be edited once in the Find Files interface.

Quite often I need to search multiple, disconnected paths for a file or files, this would make entering multiple paths much easier. Hopefully this would not be to difficult. If my meaning is unclear in any way, please let me know. I can do a mockup if you want, once I get my compiler installed.

Of course script access to all search features is a must. This would be for people like me with a bad memory - I use RegexBuddy because I can never remember Regular Expression syntax!

Wow - I can't believe no one else needs an easier way to search multiple directories at once!

Guess that's why it's never been mentioned before.

Trasd wrote:Wow - I can't believe no one else needs an easier way to search multiple directories at once!

I'd give it another couple of days before making that conclusion as some don't visit here as often as a few of us do.

Trasd wrote:Wow - I can't believe no one else needs an easier way to search multiple directories at once! Guess that's why it's never been mentioned before.

On the contrary, I am doing this all the time! But, at the risk of being a broken record, I use Everything.exe to do it. Of course I'm searching not just some set of multiple directories, but all directories everywhere.

Jerry wrote:

Trasd wrote:Wow - I can't believe no one else needs an easier way to search multiple directories at once! Guess that's why it's never been mentioned before.

On the contrary, I am doing this all the time! But, at the risk of being a broken record, I use Everything.exe to do it. Of course I'm searching not just some set of multiple directories, but all directories everywhere.

I also use everything.exe -- definitely the fastest and easiest way to find files in my experience! I set it up to be bound to Win-Shift-F, so it's always at my fingertips... I sometimes use XY for finding files, but usually only when needing to match the contents (which is a HUGE plus when I need it).

Instead of adding individual paths, why not search in the deepest common parent folder?

zer0 wrote:Instead of adding individual paths, why not search in the deepest common parent folder?

But that doesn't help for what Trasd refers to as "disconnected directories (folders that don't share the same tree branch)." Especially in my case, where I am searching across 10 or more drives.

avsfan wrote:I also use everything.exe -- definitely the fastest and easiest way to find files in my experience!

Yes, it's really quite incredible how fast it is. Just like what Trasd's signature says: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[ I only keep mentioning Everything.exe in the forum because it's not being actively maintained by its author, and in my wildest dreams I keep hoping that Don might be intrigued enough to look into its MFT-based technology to make something similar and integrated with XYplorer. Probably requires C or C++ though unless VB has a comprehensive interface to the Win32 API. ]

Jerry wrote:[ I only keep mentioning Everything.exe in the forum because it's not being actively maintained by its author, and in my wildest dreams I keep hoping that Don might be intrigued enough to look into its MFT-based technology to make something similar and integrated with XYplorer. Probably requires C or C++ though unless VB has a comprehensive interface to the Win32 API. ]

Fascinating idea -- that could *really* be excellent! And I'm sure that if Don has any interest in doing that, he'd be able to figure out a way to make it work (Please!) I'd love to have XY be just as fast and powerful as everything.exe...

zer0 wrote:Instead of adding individual paths, why not search in the deepest common parent folder?

Not so easy when they are network locations or on different volumes.

Personally, I liked the idea but am not sure about the implementation, so I was waiting to see what, if anything, Don had to say before joining the discussion. Plus, I type/auto-complete the vast majority of paths I use, so it wouldn't affect me much.

j_c_hallgren wrote:I'd give it another couple of days before making that conclusion as some don't visit here as often as a few of us do.

Yea, guys, I'm so sorry - I really thought I had made the entry at the beginning of the week, but that's actually when I started thinking about it. I jumped the gun.

Jerry wrote:On the contrary, I am doing this all the time! But, at the risk of being a broken record, I use Everything.exe to do it. Of course I'm searching not just some set of multiple directories, but all directories everywhere.

Jerry, I use FileLocator Pro - it's not that I don't have a solution, it just makes more sense to me to keep this ability with the file manager - in its own tab is, like Don does it, makes it much nicer. I know you sent me info on Everything.exe, but its bugs and lack of development has kept me away form it. I am one major version behind on FileLocator Pro right now and want to avoid upgrading if Don shows any interest in developing his search feature. Already I have a lot of faith in Don's programming ability.

Jerry wrote:

zer0 wrote:Instead of adding individual paths, why not search in the deepest common parent folder?

But that doesn't help for what Trasd refers to as "disconnected directories (folders that don't share the same tree branch)." Especially in my case, where I am searching across 10 or more drives.

I was silently hoping that they do have a common parent somewhere up above. What about a way to run individual searches in each path instead of consolidating?

zer0 wrote:What about a way to run individual searches in each path instead of consolidating?

It would be much better if the results end up in the same tab - otherwise we could just run separate searches; how ever that could be achieved, would be fine. But, I suggested it the way I did (the details on the implementation) because most of the stuff Don needs to do is already in place, he would just be giving us UI access to the buffer, much less programming. Of course I'm guessing at this (this is how I would do it, if my assumptions are right). If Don decides to add this time-saving feature, he would have to integrate it however he sees fit - which will undoubtedly be a much better solution than the one I proposed. After all, if I was as good as Don, you would be running some of my programs too!

So, the digital mob is already rioting when I take more than 24 hours to add a wished feature?!

I'm not totally convinced by that "Memo field" idea. Maybe I did not get the picture right.

I see two other possibilities:

1. Drag + drop a path into the location field to add it.

2. A new (optional) command in the context menu of folders: "Add this path to the Location box" (or so).

Opinions?

Don wrote:I see two other possibilities:

1. Drag + drop a path into the location field to add it.

2. A new (optional) command in the context menu of folders: "Add this path to the Location box" (or so).

Opinions?

I believe there is a strong argument for the ability to easily edit the path list, not just add to it; but I will defer (for now)....

I do appreciate your listening.

Don wrote:So, the digital mob is already rioting when I take more than 24 hours to add a wished feature?!

I thought you would need a certain number of people to back an idea up before you would even consider it, I was prodding them, not you!

I added something (next version). Let me know how close I came to your vision.