"MPC" file extension

aklankrisz · Post by **aklankrisz** » 2003-01-06 00:13

Hello!

Please put the "MPC" file extension into the music File types...

This is a very-very high quality lossy file format....

http://musepack.org/

Thanks!

Krisztian Aklan

flloyd · Post by **flloyd** » 2003-05-21 15:30

I would also like to see this happen. It would be a simple addition and would really help some of the music hubs that I am in. Please also include .mp+ since this is what it used to be called.

Thanks a lot if you can do this.

TheParanoidOne · Post by **TheParanoidOne** » 2003-05-21 16:14

Have a search through the forums. There are already threads with people requesting extension inclusions and the responses to those requests.

I seem to remember the responses being negative, but I don't remember exactly.

Twink · Post by **Twink** » 2003-05-21 22:21

I think it would make more sense to make the extensions customizable
so in the xml it has something like

<Extensions>
<type name = "music files">
<ext>mpc</etc>
<ext>mp3</etc>
</type>
</Extensions>

or whatever. then dc++ could load that up.

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2003-05-21 22:40

It's not an issue of writing the code, but of the hit that people are willing to take to add and search additional filetypes. Each type you add makes searching take up a little more CPU time, although some of you might want specific extensions to be searched for generic categories (like OGM in Videos). Perhaps customization would be nice beyond the standard set. But this will make things incrementally slower, at a time when arne is working to make searches take up less CPU time

flloyd · Post by **flloyd** » 2003-05-22 07:50

But how much processing power does this take anyway? I can't imagine that it is very much. Has anyone done tests on this?

The only thing that I think needs to be done if we are allowed to add our own filetypes (which I think is a good thing) is to be sure that the origianl ones (such as .mp3, .avi, .zip, etc.) are "hardcoded", otherwise leechers might remove them all and others would never find these files in their share if they did a specific search.

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2003-05-24 13:24

flloyd wrote:But how much processing power does this take anyway? I can't imagine that it is very much. Has anyone done tests on this?

If you can argue this successfully against fusbar, I'll code this feature and submit it to Arne. Fusbar has a huge share and DC++ and searches take up a _lot_ of his CPU time. He's the motivation behind at least two or three of the search improvements in some recent DC++ versions.

Tremelune · Post by **Tremelune** » 2004-01-07 14:55

If you want to use up less CPU time, you could easily remove a number of filetypes (most notable: mp3, avi, mpg)...but that would make the search tool far less useful, and that would be stupid, right? Conversely, adding filetypes would make the search tool far more effective while using more CPU power. It's a tradeoff, obviously.

You don't need to add every file type people use, but there are some truly glaring absences, such as ape, flac, shn, ogg, and ogm for video. Correct me if this is inaccurate, because I always end up doing four searches for files I'm really trying to find (especially lossless). That uses more CPU, too...

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2004-01-07 22:37

OGG and OGM are both in SearchManager's list of extensions. As far as APE, FLAC, and SHN go, you can do a regular search: 01 <track name> and then use the size characteristics to (likely) return all the lossless encodes at once (say, files above 10mb). Just use the magical "Download Whole Directory" feature once you find what you want.

The definition of "glaring" really depends on your personal usage of DC++. Some people use it for books, some for applications, some for video, and some for audio. If you're a video user, FLAC probably doesn't mean anything to you, but you might want MKV or MP4.

Tremelune · Post by **Tremelune** » 2004-01-08 11:22

I would say most people use DC++ to search for audio and video.

I'm not saying there isn't a way to find lossless versions of things, or any particular file type, but it involves more searches, which negates the CPU-cycle saving measure of not including common extensions in the search list in the first place. It seems like the search could easily be made more effective, but it's being held back by politics.

It's not a life-changing feature, and I apologize if I'm getting uppity, but extending catagories to include file extensions that have made their way into common use is a good idea.