|
Been a long time since one of these, "I dont like the way the calibre library works, change it for me threads". So to recap:
The calibre library structure is designed to be user browseable (and note, I said browseable, not modifiable). Originally, it was not, lots of people complained. That is not going to change.
And no, I am not going to maintain multiple library backends. If you want to know why, just look at the amount of code in the current library backend designed around trying to maintain data integrity for software that, unlike say Project Gutenberg, is designed to run in a huge number of contexts, by absolute laymen. We're talking millions of users vs. hundreds of users.
Dont use multiple libraries. The whole point of multiple libraries is, by definition, to separate the content in the libraries. There is zero point in creating multiple libraries and then demanding that calibre be able to combine those multiple libraries. That is not going to happen. Repeat after me, library A and library B means that the content of library A is separate from the content of library B. If you wish to partition your content, use the tools calibre provides for that purpose, namely, restrictions, in a single library.
And before I get someone complaining that they cant put all their book files into a single folder, note that you cannot list more than about 50,000 books at a time with acceptable performance. And 50,000 ebooks at approx 5MB per book is 250GB. Current hard drives are in the Terabyte range. So there's no good reason to not put them into a single folder.
Now, it is possible to come up with some examples where it is not optimal to have everything in a single folder. For example, I could be trying to maintain a library of 10,000 500MB PDF photo books. Or I could have badly organised disks, none of which individually have a lot of free space. But those are corner cases, calibre's design is not going to change to cater to them, at the expense of the vast majority of people for whom the design is optimal.
|