Quote:
Originally Posted by kovidgoyal
@Adoby: 1 and 3, sure.
|
Nice!
Quote:
|
2) is not a good idea IMO as it will reduce performance for normal (post cache) usage and increase code complexity, simply to cater to a relatively rare event - resizing covers.
|
Sounds reasonable. Now the grid is new and invites to test with different sizes, but in the long run you will most likely stick to one size and the disk cache will not be invalidated often.
But the alternative I suggested could perhaps still be considerd? Precache just the next screen or two of covers in memory, in anticipation that the user will keep scrolling in the same direction after a quick look at the covers on the current view? A very likely event.
I have had more fun with the combination of the cover grid view and virtual libraries. And I notice a very clear difference between covers that are cached in memory or only on disk, and that is despite having the disk cache on a SSD. There is a slight delay when updating the screen going in one direction compared to when you go back, and can use the memory cache. I suggest that it would be a good use of the memory cache to precache and continue reading in covers from the disk cache to the memory cache in anticipation of another scroll being made.
But I agree that it isn't something that should be a priority, it is a rather minor thing. The cover grid is still pretty fast, even if it isn't always smooth.
Quote:
|
4) Having an optional tabbed interface for virtual libraries is interesting, but I dont see why it should be restricted to only the cover view,it would come in handy for the table view as well. However, I'm not promising anything, as implementing it will likely be a fair bit of work.
|
A tabbed interface to the table view, as well, was a very intriguing thought! A tabbed interface would change how the user experience calibre quite a bit, and put a LOT more emphasis on the virtual libraries. Not something to change without careful deliberation.
But on the other hand, a tabbed interface is really only a much more convenient and intuitive way to switch virtual libraries, compared to the current method.
On the third hand it would also slightly reduce the size available to display both the cover grid and the table view. And it is likely that there will be many more virtual libraries than can be displayed at one time in a horizontal tab interface. I have already a lot more than that from having fun with the grid view.
When editing the settings for a virtual library, a simple checkbox to display the virtual library as a tab in the interface would be a very nice way to connect the virtual library to the interface, but that will most likely not be enough. Some way to order/group and switch virtual libraries in the tabbed interface would also be helpful or even needed.
But it is nothing to prioritise now, the current changes going on are already big enough for a update to 1.0. Enough to handle that...