Important news for iTunes/iDevice users: changes in 0.8.7

[adv_dp_fan]

Originally Posted by ApK

Are you annoyed that you can't specify what sectors your OS uses when it writes files to your disk? Think of Calibre library the same way.

Not really a good example as my OS doesn't force me to keep 3 to 5 copies of the file just because it wants to decide what sectors it wants to use.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by adv_dp_fan

Not really a good example as my OS doesn't force me to keep 3 to 5 copies of the file just because it wants to decide what sectors it wants to use.

Exaggerate much? 3-5 my ever loving ass. If you want to spread FUD, at least have the grace to not do it here.

[adv_dp_fan]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Exaggerate much? 3-5 my ever loving ass. If you want to spread FUD, at least have the grace to not do it here.

Hang on, I'm not trying to spread anything. I can easily see 3 copies, someone else posted about 4 copies and I though of one situation with 5 copies. So no, not exaggerating much. Touchy are you? Don't alienate a supporter who is just trying to figure out how best to use your software to meet his needs.

In my case, one copy in Calibre's library, one copy in my own section for me to work with since Calibre doesn't want us messing with it's copy, one copy in iTunes to sync since we sync from Calibre and not our copies and a back up on another drive on the system. I saw someone else counting the copy on the device so that could be 5 but I do think we should stick with copies on the actual system itself so 3-4.

Personally, I really like Calibre and think you have done a great job and am not trying to knock you and your work. I just though the OS/sector example wasn't a good one really.

I do have to carefully consider how I plan to move forward with these changes. Since I have several people in the house all using it for each of their readers, I though a networked database would be nice. Keep the library on a server and everyone could pull the books that they wanted on their devices over to their systems. (Do this now as all the ebooks are on one system and everyone runs their own Calibre locally.)

Problem I am seeing is that nobody wants to have everybody else's books messing up their clean libraries. It is the same with all our music. At the moment we are all holding on 0.8.6 and not upgrading while I figure out what is going to work best for us. Change how we manage our libraries, switch to just use iTunes or the Sony app to manage libraries now or just continue with 0.8.6 and never upgrade. Not sure what we'll do yet.

One question, the "faqs" list this as a change to support an "option" of a networked database in the future. What happens if we don't select that option and everything is local? Could things still be worked out to support using the local files in that case?

Also, on a side note, if we follow the instructions to "remove from device" after loading the book onto our iDevice, to save the extra space, won't that then delete it from the iDevice the next time we sync as it will no longer be in the iTunes library?

Again, you have written a nice piece of software. You have decided to take it in a new direction which is fine. Just have to figure out which direction is best for our particular cases.

[kovidgoyal]

calibre "forces" you to keep only one copy. The extra copy for itunes is present because of itunes (or more precisely because Apple dont want you to use anything other than itunes to send files to their devices). There is nothing that prevents you from working on files in the calibre library, so there is no need to keep an extra copy to work on. The only restriction is that you don't move the files around outside of calibre.

As for the network backend, once again, it is *optional*. Don't use it if you dont want to, in which case calibre will continue to work as it does today.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

As for the network backend, once again, it is *optional*. Don't use it if you dont want to, in which case calibre will continue to work as it does today.

I want to make sure I'm clear: using a networked backend is optional, but the architectural changes which enable it, which prevent the Apple driver from directly accessing a file in the library, as it had done until now, are not optional, and GRiker's Original post info will apply to anyone who uses an iDevice with 0.8.8 or higher whether they use a network backend or not, correct?

ApK

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by ApK

I want to make sure I'm clear: using a networked backend is optional, but the architectural changes that enable it, which prevent the Apple driver from directly accessing a file in the library, as it had done until now, are not optional, and GRiker's Original post info will apply to anyone who uses 0.8.8 or higher whether they use a network backend or not, correct?

ApK

Yes. And let me repeat, that the old architecture which had itunes directly referencing files in the calibre library, was IMO, not the best. For example, if you change the title/author of a book that you had previously sent to itunes, in the old architecture, its path on disk would change and itunes would lose track of it. Or on windows, where files are locked whenever they are opened, if you try to do some operation on a file while it is open in iTunes, the operation would fail. Conversely if calibre is doing something to the file and itunes tries to open it, it would fail.

So, I think this change is a desirable thing, regardless of the network backend.

[ApK]

Got it, Thanks. You answered faster than I can correct my typos.

[adv_dp_fan]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

calibre "forces" you to keep only one copy. The extra copy for itunes is present because of itunes (or more precisely because Apple dont want you to use anything other than itunes to send files to their devices). There is nothing that prevents you from working on files in the calibre library, so there is no need to keep an extra copy to work on. The only restriction is that you don't move the files around outside of calibre.

I know we can "work" on the copy in the Calibre database, just not moving it, but it has always been recommended that we don't touch it at all and work on a copy outside Calibre. Which may be a good suggestion as I think I hit a situation where the meta was out of sync once and the only way to fix was to delete the book from the library and re-import it.

Apple does want us to use iTunes to sync but they don't force you have have a separate copy. At least up until now as they were happy to use the copy in the Calibre database. This is how all of my music, apps and everything else iTunes syncs is currently handled as I don't use the "copy to iTunes library" option.

In my case, I have one copy on a backup drive and then one copy in Calibre which was also used by iTunes so unless I have a copy out to work on for some reason I really only have 2 copies. Now I will have at least 3.

BTW, what happens with the unsupported sync with iDevice instead of the connect to iTunes method? Will that go away in this case or will that still be available but unsupported?

[Edited to remove a question answered before I could post.]

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by adv_dp_fan

I know we can "work" on the copy in the Calibre database, just not moving it, but it has always been recommended that we don't touch it at all and work on a copy outside Calibre. Which may be a good suggestion as I think I hit a situation where the meta was out of sync once and the only way to fix was to delete the book from the library and re-import it.

Metadata is stored in a central database, not in the files. So by working on the file, you do not run any risk of getting the metadata "out of sync". When you export (send to device/save to disk) a file from calibre the metadata in the exported copy is always updated to that in the central database.

And even if you do want to work on a private copy of a file, for whatever reason, that still does not mean that you have to store external copies of every file in your calibre library, only the file you are currently working on.

Apple does want us to use iTunes to sync but they don't force you have have a separate copy. At least up until now as they were happy to use the copy in the Calibre database. This is how all of my music, apps and everything else iTunes syncs is currently handled as I don't use the "copy to iTunes library" option.

See my previous post for the problems with this approach, regardless of a network backend.

In my case, I have one copy on a backup drive and then one copy in Calibre which was also used by iTunes so unless I have a copy out to work on for some reason I really only have 2 copies. Now I will have at least 3.

A backup is not a external copy that calibre is forcing you to have. Even if calibre did not exist, you would still backup your data.

BTW, what happens with the unsupported sync with iDevice instead of the connect to iTunes method? Will that go away in this case or will that still be available but unsupported?

I have no idea, GRiker will have to answer that.

[GRiker]

Originally Posted by adv_dp_fan

BTW, what happens with the unsupported sync with iDevice instead of the connect to iTunes method? Will that go away in this case or will that still be available but unsupported?

Still available, still unsupported, and it uses the exact same code to reference/manage a local copy of the file. No difference with respect to the number of copies on your system.

G

[adv_dp_fan]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Metadata is stored in a central database, not in the files. So by working on the file, you do not run any risk of getting the metadata "out of sync". When you export (send to device/save to disk) a file from calibre the metadata in the exported copy is always updated to that in the central database.

Yes I know. I don't recall now what was out of sync, just something Calibre listed in the gui didn't match the files. I deleted it and re-imported and forgot about it and moved on. Just brought it up as an example of even though we can work on the Calibre versions, it is often best not to do so.

See my previous post for the problems with this approach, regardless of a network backend.

All good examples. Stuff I never thought about as we've never had any issues like that. Many ways to deal with them.

A backup is not a external copy that calibre is forcing you to have. Even if calibre did not exist, you would still backup your data.

Never meant to suggest Calibre was forcing me to have a backup. Just counting how many copies of a book might be on a system, which Calibre is forcing up by one now by not allowing us access to its copy. But this is all just nitpicking. Really just trying to get as much info so I can figure out which path to take for our purposes.

Thanks.

[ApK]

Oh, and thanks again, GRiker, for being so responsive to our concerns about these changes and for your quick work on the changes between .8.7 and .8.8!

[adv_dp_fan]

Originally Posted by GRiker

Still available, still unsupported, and it uses the exact same code to reference/manage a local copy of the file. No difference with respect to the number of copies on your system.

So you are saying it will still require an extra copy?

[GRiker]

Originally Posted by ApK

Oh, and thanks again, GRiker, for being so responsive to our concerns about these changes and for your quick work on the changes between .8.7 and .8.8!

You're welcome.

G

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by adv_dp_fan

Calibre is forcing up by one now by not allowing us access to its copy.

That really is an unfair comment, you know. It's not that Calibre won't let you access its copy. There may not be a local copy and Apple insists upon a local copy. The real problem is that Apple won't let you (or Calibre) put your ebook on an Apple controlled device using anything other than Apple controlled software.