Multiple Libraries?

[ZvezdanD]

No my friend, I am not angry, just want to tell that I don't need a help. Many users which posted this request don't need such help. This is just a hack, nothing more. I just searched the first 20 pages of the Wishlist Forum. This thread has the most pages of all. There are threads about MacOS and Linux which have slightly less pages, but all other threads have just one or two pages. Now, I am wondering how many pages and how many messages we should post here to MM developers consider such wish.

Just for the record, I need to tell you something if you are interested. Beside of other jobs, I work for one computer magazine writing articles about software. Those are mainly comparative tests. In Mart 2005 I did one test about audio catalogers and it contained:
- CATraxx 6.15.01
- Helium Music Manager 1.8.0 b4008
- MediaMonkey Standard 2.2.2 b780
- MP3 Collector 1.9 b3
- Music Catalogue 4.5
- Music Collector 6.4 b2
- Music Label 2005 11.0.1 b1228
- Music Library 1.9.806

I was tested preliminary more than 20 programs of this kind, but only those mentioned are included in that article. Of all mentioned programs only MediaMonkey and Music Catalogue didn't have a possibility to work with multiple databases. By the way, Music Catalogue is incorporated in that test only because of my wish to show how some audio cataloger should NOT look like.

[Lowlander]

Well this thread was answered by implementing the filters as well as the /infile parameter. Although it isn't to the letter of the request itself, many of those who requested multiple libraries support are satisfied by these additions. So the length of this thread is irrelevant to the importance of adding multiple libraries support. That is not to say that the developers aren't planning or won't add actual multiple database support into MediaMonkey. It's also not fair to characterize the script as a hack, scripts add valuable functionality to MediaMonkey through the effort of the many scripters creating them. The developers have chosen to leave many of the features to the scripters so only those users who require these features can add them without bogging down the software for others.
My offering help, and yes others might find the solution provided helpful, is in no way saying that this feature shouldn't be implemented. I fully understand that some users aren't served by the filters and require an actual multiple database implementation, but as MediaMonkey 3.1 is in RC this isn't likely to be added to 3.1, which means "hacks" are the only viable solution in the meantime.

I'm sorry you're so unappreciative of those offering helpful tips on this forum as that's what makes these forums so great.

[ZvezdanD]

Yes, most of the time you are very helpful and many users are very grateful for that. However, I already said that filters are not an answer to this request. There are many situations when someone cannot resolve his needs with filters. If I follow your logic I could ask myself what about Search. The Search option is just a special case of filters, right? So, now when we have filters, MM developers could remove that Search option from the program. Why we need it when we have filters? Well, there are same amount of this request after introducing filters as before, so I think this is obvious that your mentioning of filters is simply not a solution for users. So, I really think that the length of this thread is relevant to the importance of this request. People are not asking so many times for something which don't want. As someone before me said, if you cannot see a need for multiple databases this doesn't mean that users don't need it.

Yes, I think that a solution which needs the restart of the program is a hack. You could make it with some script, or batch file, or executable file or whatever, but it is still a hack. Could you imagine that Microsoft say to its users that they need to restart Access when they want to open another database? Or to restart Excel when they need to open another spreadsheet or Word when they want to open another document. The "Open database file" option sounds so natural to many users that it is simply unbelievable such attitude about its non-implementation in MM. I said already, many programs with same purpose as MediMonkey have such option. Do you want to tell me that all of those programs are wrong and only MM has the right approach? What about skins? Could you imagine that you need to restart program whenever you change some skin? Believe it or not, but many users have much more needs to change their databases during work than skins.

[Lowlander]

Well, first of all many users requesting multiple library support have been served by the filters. Your wrong to say that it doesn't serve users with multiple library needs. This doesn't mean that it serves all users and I never stated multiple library support shouldn't be implemented. I'm just saying that mentioning other solutions does help other people and even if it's no use to you there is no need to get angry about the help being offered.
Many long time users have our long standing wish list and would like to see this issues addresses sooner then later, but this is no reason to react angrily at other users. There is a very long list of features that different users want to see in MediaMonkey and the developers implement many with each new release. But it should also be understood that not all features requested will be implemented, such is software development.
I have nothing against the multiple database support. I think it would be useful addition to MediaMonkey, but I also think that filters solved the multiple database needs for many users albeit in a different way then many expect. This is why mentioning it's existence and functioning is important as many will find that it serves their purpose. It doesn't help you and that's fully understandable, you will need multiple database support and your request is valid, but there is no need to get angry about it. It is not my nor other forum users fault that it isn't implemented.

[ZvezdanD]

Wow, you mentioned a word "angry" three times in the last post, even after I said that I am not angry. Well, I think that you are angry, not me. I could only repeat that you are very helpful for many users, especially beginners, and many of them appreciate your help. However, I am not a novice user and I think that you should know that. You know, I suppose that I am between oldest people in this forum and don't like when someone is treating me like some inexperienced child.

[nohitter151]

fyi... http://www.ventismedia.com/mantis/view.php?id=107

[drichm]

fyi... http://www.ventismedia.com/mantis/view.php?id=107

- is 'high priority' but the last comment by Rusty was on 2007-06-08, so maybe not that high. See also my previous post on this thread http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4967&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=135#p189999.

To add to the discussion by Lowlander and ZvezdanD above, maybe part of the problem is the lack of feedback from developers on this subject.

Over a year ago on this thread I listed why filters are not enough to match Multiple Libraries functionality. I also asked for the equivalent of a /inifile switch several years ago as a minimum solution (again, I believe, on this thread - there have been a few on this subject).

I can only imagine that Mulitple Libaries has not been implemented since the developers want a good solution. Just simply switching databases would screw-up your playlist, filters and various other settings kept in the database. Without any feedback on why, I can only guess that is the reason.

Dave

[Peke]

I have even made small Application that will backup all MM settings including library, ini, registry to specified Folder and Apron startup from portable device move all files back to default location and start MM. Additionally Apron MM close it will update specified folder with new library.

MM was so unstable so I never publish it due the high risk Multiple libraries issue always floats around as High (manageable but not stable enough) where Urgent would mean Stable enough for high considering for implementation in next stable version and Immediately means scheduled to be fixed during current beta process or in next bug fix release for stable release.

Multiple Libraries and portability is really one thing that still get me back to Where is It? when I want to have list on my flash drive.

[Pen P]

I vote for multiple libraries too. I must manage my mom's music as well and all her stuff gets organized with mine.

[gingernut]

Well I've just read this entire thread. Orininally I thought I too needed multiple libraries as I have my girlfriends MP3 collection on my PC as well as my own. Also I just decided to rerip all my CDs to FLAC with the intention of reconverting to new MP3s. And then I want to catalogue all my CDs using the Virtual CD feature.

But having investigated filters I realise I don't need multiple libraries.

I will place all of my FLACs in a different folder and use a filter on file path (or maybe on file type), likewise for the girlfriend's collection.
I will create a Virtual CD filter on patch E:\

A bit of thought and filters can work well.

Of course, I don't mean to say that other users don't have a real need for multiple libraries, but for me - it's not an issue anymore.

[sxr71]

Sure I can see how you can use filters to get what you want. However some of us have begun to keep parallel libraries. For example I keep a FLAC collection which is mirrored by an ALAC collection for iTunes and Airplay and an AAC (MP4) collection for iPod and PMP use and also an MP3 library which is the compatibility fallback. All of these are to synced.

I would like to be able to replicate changes between these libraries and also have the program scan and bring up any differences between the libraries. That way I can keep them in sync with some manual control. Right now MediaMonkey by far the best program to manage large music libraries. Nothing else I have tried even comes close. However, as users are moving into methods of music management it would be nice if the program could grow to accommodate those methods.

I don't know, but I think filters, while great, are not the best solution in all cases.

[Ynox]

I have read this thread from start to finish as well and I'm shocked. Come on Mediamonkeys, where is the freaking multiple library support??? It's been five years that people are requesting this. I landed here after searching Google for the same thing. When I typed "Mediamonkey mu" right away there were two matches in Google's list of suggestions: mediamonkey multiple libraries and mediamonkey multiple databases. "Well okay," I think, "many people are obviously looking for it, so it must be there. Probably just an option hidden inside some menu," I tell myself...

So imagine my utter dismay when reading this thread and finding out that after fiiiive long yeeeears of people searching and requesting ...it still doesn't exist.

I assume multiple library support was never given any thought during the development of this otherwise great program, but it is an elemental feature of any sophisticated application that deals with data manipulation. Implementing it at this late stage probably requires a lot of file and database restructuring plus code rewriting, but if you want to play with the big boys you're eventually going to have to bite the bullet. If you don't, it will be the main reason why MM never got rid of its amateur status down the road.

A large part of MM users are tech savvy people who obviously want this functionality and they are sick and tired of resorting to clumsy, ugly hacks. Aside from not wanting the dumb wife or teenage kid mess with their carefully crafted music files, or the need to quickly test scripts and what not against a copy of their own stuff instead of risking corruption of the real database, there are dozens of other valid reasons people want truly separate databases. Perhaps get some ideas the way Firefox uses profiles, each with its own folder and settings. Things like that. Do some brainstorming and in six months from now this stuff is over and done with. And while you're at it do some other things to make this finally an all-in-one music manager, like improve on Dimitrijevic's already great RegExp Find and Replace and build it directly into MM, with support for action groups so people don't have to use third party music file taggers.

Of course I'm not holding my breath. Going by the way most things on the wishlist are treated it will always be just that; a wish.

[Lowlander]

Aside from not wanting the dumb wife or teenage kid mess with their carefully crafted music files

Filters take care of this (http://www.mediamonkey.com/sw/webhelp/f ... monkey.htm).

Besides there is the ini switching method (http://www.mediamonkey.com/support/inde ... ticleid=45) and the database switcher by onkel_enno (viewtopic.php?p=34699#p34699).

So 3 solutions are already available for various user scenarios. That doesn't mean that in program database switching and the option to merge/extract databases wouldn't be nice. I also didn't know that the big guys like iTunes and WMP supported multiple libraries.

[Ynox]

Filters take care of this

No they don't. Not until you can password protect a filter.

Besides there is the ini switching method and the database switcher by onkel_enno

Five years in and still urging people to use clumsy, ugly hacks.

I also didn't know that the big guys like iTunes and WMP supported multiple libraries.

Press Shift key when launching iTunes. Now you know.

[Dreadlau]

Hello.
I'd like to add my support to multiple libraries management.
Where is the pole?