I am not sure that a check box is applicable, since this would appear to be a required entry.

Something must be used to separate multiple artists, I haven't tried it, but if you want the appearance of not having a separator, try a blank space. Since I have no idea what, if any consequences this would have on the library database, I would of course highly recommend making a backup copy before doing so.

You may or may not realize it, but I think your posts here and elsewhere on the board can sometimes be a bit confrontational.

> you now

What's with the "now"? I proposed it six months ago:

[quote]1170 Objection to proposal to release
http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=148467#p148467
Make the new behaviour with respect to ';' an option, off by default. [/quote]

> want them to offer to NOT do this?

Um, they already have offered:
[quote]http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=149310#p149310
We really do see the need for change in this area, and we are planning on making it,[/quote]

> Taking away Multi-Value support could have an impact on the database,
> as the artists have been split as they should in the Artists Table.

I sure do hope taking it away would have an impact on all the artists here that were split when they SHOULDN'T have been. However, note that the option under discussion is presented as for Appearence only.

> it was surely figured out along the line that a checkbox is unneeded.

I see nothing sure about that. Especially since it does not accord with the Mantis entry.

> Might I ask where this "long-standing" promise was made?

Sorry - s/promised/planned/

> what stops you from changing the splitting
> value to a character that appears nowhere in your files

The simple fact that I don't know of any character that appears nowhere in my existing 20K files and nowhere in the next 20K files I add.

"Multi-Value" is supported by ID3, a subject which you voiced your opinion on several times in the past. So now that the MM Team have changed the way the tag is saved (which you suggested), and given people the option of how these split values are shown (which I believe you also voiced your opinion on, wanting "/" instead of ";" much like the actual saving of the tag), you now want them to offer to NOT do this?

Taking away Multi-Value support could have an impact on the database, as the artists have been split as they should in the Artists Table. Just because a checkbox was proposed in the description for that "Bug" doesn't mean it has to be included in the final product, plans often change in the process of finalizing the idea and putting the feature in, it was surely figured out along the line that a checkbox is unneeded.

"[b]Best is to make good on the claim[/b] that the check box has been added, [b]and hence on the long-standing promise to restore single-value operation.[/b]" Might I ask where this "long-standing" promise was made? I can't for the life of me recall any of the developers making this promise. However, if you want it so bad, what stops you from changing the splitting value to a character that appears nowhere in your files, then changing that character in your files back to "/" or ";" which then should give you exactly what you want. *Shrugs*

[quote="Owyn"]Ummm. Perhaps the best solution is to require:
1) That the field always be present (i.e no checkbox), [/quote]I see nothing best about that. Best is to make good on the claim that the check box has been added, and hence on the long-standing promise to restore single-value operation.

Ummm. Perhaps the best solution is to require:
1) That the field always be present (i.e no checkbox),
2) That the permitted values be one of the special characters, excluding space
3) Maybe use a non-extending drop-down selection for the field.

----------------------
Thinking about it further, maybe just ";" and "/" are reasonable values which reflect current practices.

> if it is only for Appearances sake, what is the point of making the change?

The point is to provide the old MM behaviour, wherein e.g. Artist is a treated as single-value field for display.

> What difference does it make in having a checkbox if the db will just use the default of ";"?

Actually I don't care what the DB uses, provided the checkbox works as designed.

> This option gives you the opportunity to select your own separator, so if a checkbox
> is added and you uncheck it then the db will just use the default

Not if it accords with the design! Unchecking a checkbox on "Split..." will disable splitting, not just disable selection of the split character.

[quote="chrisjj"]> If there is a checkbox and it is not selected, doesn't that mean MM would not use a separator for multi-value fields??

Yes.

> What kind of impact would that have on the db?

None... if as the UI says this option is just for [b]Appearence[/b].[/quote]

Ok, it's a little early in the morning and I do not have any caffeine in me yet, but if it is only for Appearances sake, what is the point of making the change? What difference does it make in having a checkbox if the db will just use the default of ";"? This option gives you the opportunity to select your own separator, so if a checkbox is added and you uncheck it then the db will just use the default, so just don't make any change to it, no need to add a checkbox.... As stated I don not have any caffeine in me so maybe I am missing the point, can you clarify if I am?

Nyn

> If there is a checkbox and it is not selected, doesn't that mean MM would not use a separator for multi-value fields??

Yes.

> What kind of impact would that have on the db?

None... if as the UI says this option is just for [b]Appearence[/b].

[quote="Owyn"]Added Note to Mantis.[/quote]Thanks Owyn.

[quote="nynaevelan"]I am not sure why the checkbox is needed. If there is a checkbox and it is not selected, doesn't that mean MM would not use a separator for multi-value fields?? What kind of impact would that have on the db?

Nyn[/quote]

Ummm. You could be right. Will let Rusty/Jiri resolve the issue.

I am not sure why the checkbox is needed. If there is a checkbox and it is not selected, doesn't that mean MM would not use a separator for multi-value fields?? What kind of impact would that have on the db?

Nyn

Added Note to Mantis.

1202 'Split multiple attribute fields with' checkbox missing

Though http://www.ventismedia.com/mantis/view.php?id=4938 is marked 'resolved', the checkbox for 'Split multiple attribute fields with' is missing.