[bookport]
- From: "ptorpey" <ptorpey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:29:12 -0400
Larry,
If the problem is that the book list order within a folder gets messed
up after a new item is downloaded to that folder, why not simply add any
new items to the end of the list? That way, if the bookport was
previously pointing to file number M in a list of N files, then, even if
new files were added the pointer would still point to file m (i.e., the
same file), but in a list of N+new files number of files, and your idea
would work.
Adding newly added files to the end of the files list might not be such
a bad idea anyway - thus, the last files copied into a folder would be
the last files in the files list for that folder.
Right now, the order of files always seems to be rather obtuse and
random. Are they copied by time/date, alphabetically, or what (I
haven't checked)?
-- Pete
From: "LARRY SKUTCHAN" <lskutchan@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [bookport] Re: One more little item
I love this idea and want to do that too. There is one small issue =
though. Right now, without some huge commitment, Book Port only knows =
which file it is working with by its order in the directory list. I
guess = what I am trying to say is that we could easily provide this
feature = provided you know that it would get things wrong if you delete
or add = files that appeared before the current file in the directory
structure.
>>> ptorpey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sunday, May 16, 2004 10:42:37 AM >>>
This is just a nit, but is a tiny bit frustrating, and I wonder if the =
behavior can be modified.
Let's say the user is in a particular folder/text and stops reading in =
order to download new material. After the download is completed and the
= unit is unplugged, it would be nice if the user was placed in the same
= folder/text position where they left off before the transfer began. =
Currently, the user is placed in the root directory after the transfer
is = complete and must re-navigate to the folder/book which they were
reading = before the transfer began.
Again, this isn't a big problem, but it would be nice to have the user's
=
position/state maintained.
-- Pete
Other related posts:
