Distinct Shares for Different Hubs

Archived discussion about features (predating the use of Bugzilla as a bug and feature tracker)

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
RMIce127
Posts: 2
Joined: 2004-01-30 17:49

Distinct Shares for Different Hubs

Post by RMIce127 » 2004-01-30 17:55

What I am looking to do is specify what is shared by hub rather than a global level. This way I can share different files / amounts on different hubs to satisfy hub requirements as well as my own personal needs why still maintaining simultaneous hub connections.

If these feature is currently implemented then I apologize. However I would still like to know how it is done.

Thanks

RMIce127
Posts: 2
Joined: 2004-01-30 17:49

Post by RMIce127 » 2004-01-30 18:03

Nevermind... I found that this was a rejected feature...

I can see how this can be a time consuming feature to implement but damn...

McDC
Posts: 16
Joined: 2003-01-04 05:08

Post by McDC » 2004-01-31 08:48

RMIce127 wrote:Nevermind... I found that this was a rejected feature...

I can see how this can be a time consuming feature to implement but damn...



Time consuming, maybe but if you are going to implement virtual folders different shares for different hubs are no big deal. The sharemanager just have to have a solid meta structure.

shufty
Posts: 11
Joined: 2004-01-30 03:08

Post by shufty » 2004-01-31 09:05

all it would take is a little xml file shuffling, the option to save a defined list of shared folders, and an option to use a list of saved list of share folders.

Todi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 699
Joined: 2003-03-04 12:16
Contact:

Post by Todi » 2004-01-31 09:10

It's a bit more complex than that, as has been discussed before, here for instance. Or use the search.

seaside
Posts: 1
Joined: 2004-03-02 15:57

Turn it upside down.

Post by seaside » 2004-03-02 16:25

The problem as I see it is that some hubs I want to connect to, do not accept some of the topics I share in other hubs.
It isn't only pr0n, but there are hubs which doesn't accept mp3 files and hubs which doesn't accept anything but their topic.

If I had to add the share for each hub seperately then of course I would add as little as possible. (Yours truly is as lazy as everyone else.)

But it is always possible to turn a problem on its head.
Instead of being able to add folders for each hub, give me the feature of being able to hide files and folders in hubs which doesn't want them.
I'm no programmer. I haven't got the faintest idea what that involves.

As things are now, what is shared is decided by the least tolerant hubs in my the hublist. Surely that isn't the best of situations either.

I know. To long.

Anyway.

Best wishes.
Mr. R

Twink
Posts: 436
Joined: 2003-03-31 23:31
Location: New Zealand

Re: Turn it upside down.

Post by Twink » 2004-03-02 18:56

seaside wrote:The problem as I see it is that some hubs I want to connect to, do not accept some of the topics I share in other hubs.
It isn't only pr0n, but there are hubs which doesn't accept mp3 files and hubs which doesn't accept anything but their topic.

If I had to add the share for each hub seperately then of course I would add as little as possible. (Yours truly is as lazy as everyone else.)

But it is always possible to turn a problem on its head.
Instead of being able to add folders for each hub, give me the feature of being able to hide files and folders in hubs which doesn't want them.
I'm no programmer. I haven't got the faintest idea what that involves.

As things are now, what is shared is decided by the least tolerant hubs in my the hublist. Surely that isn't the best of situations either.

I know. To long.

Anyway.

Best wishes.
Mr. R


Thats essentually the same feature. So no you are not likely to see this implemented.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Re: Turn it upside down.

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-03-11 19:27

seaside wrote:But it is always possible to turn a problem on its head.
Instead of being able to add folders for each hub, give me the feature of being able to hide files and folders in hubs which doesn't want them.
I'm no programmer. I haven't got the faintest idea what that involves.


So you're walking around the problem and then calling it a different one? =)

Both involve the same issue: given an identical nick on each hub you're on, you have to (with 100% certainty) be able to match up the user with the hub they're on. When connecting to another client, yours only advertises its name, not originating hub.

So you have a bunch of identical names, and you have to sort them out.


I think it can be done with the current protocol (which was only ever designed for a client to be on a single hub at a time), but the solution is probably incredibly messy. None of the DC++ mod makers I've seen have tackled this... that says something.

Anyhow, you're just rephrasing it, not making it a new problem. =)

Ihmemies
Posts: 5
Joined: 2003-12-30 04:36
Location: Finland

Post by Ihmemies » 2004-04-19 08:27

I've noticed that different shares for different hubs is not going to happen.

What I did not find tough, was if it's possible to make different share configurations. For example, I select from a menu "share a" and it shares for example D:\blaa1 and E:\blaa2. If I select instead "share b", it would share instead D:\asdaa1 and E:\asdaa2, maybe E:\blahblah1. And those different sharelists could be configurable, and you could toggle between them when you are not connected to any hub.

Since some hubs require for example. "no pr0n/hentai here", or I don't want to share other than comics in a comic releated hub. I don't mind being in only one hub at one time (if neccessary), if I just could simply adjust my share by switching between preconfigured sharelists. Currently it's a bit hideous process to always go to options and add/remove folders. It's not user-friendly.

I'd like to hear if this is already suggested, if yes, what's the current status? If not, is this possible to do to some future version? Or is it too complicated? You don't have to include any specific hubs. Think it as adding different profiles for a user :)

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-04-19 19:18

The suggestion of having different share directories that compromise one's share, and being able to toggle them on/off easily (while still being global) has been suggested. I don't know of anyone who has coded this, which also rules out the possibility of me knowing if they've contributed it to DC++.

Twink
Posts: 436
Joined: 2003-03-31 23:31
Location: New Zealand

Post by Twink » 2004-04-19 19:22

GargoyleMT wrote:The suggestion of having different share directories that compromise one's share, and being able to toggle them on/off easily (while still being global) has been suggested. I don't know of anyone who has coded this, which also rules out the possibility of me knowing if they've contributed it to DC++.


I did make a patch to toggle shares on and off (for version 0.4 I think) however I didn't understand how searching worked well enough to stop certain files turning up in search when they weren't actually shared.

Appears in this thread
http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/forum ... highlight=

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-04-19 19:28

Oh, right, thank you, Twink. =)

Ihmemies: per-hub shares will be possible on the ADC protocol, but whether DC++'s architecture will be reorganized so that's easily possible is another speculation.

synthmeme
Posts: 2
Joined: 2004-05-06 10:09

What about running multiple instances?

Post by synthmeme » 2004-05-06 10:32

Instead of tackling the problem in DC++, what about installing a second copy of the software and running it simultaneously? This way you can define different shares for different hubs without making any changes to the existing file management system.

What would need to change in DC++ to allow Windows to launch multiple instances of it? (can't seem to do it today)

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Re: What about running multiple instances?

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-05-16 15:19

synthmeme wrote:What would need to change in DC++ to allow Windows to launch multiple instances of it? (can't seem to do it today)

Preventing multiple instances is a feature inside DC++ - removing that code is unlikely to happen. There are other solutions, such as running clients under two users (XP/2K can do this). There are also DC++ based mods that have this code removed.

Locked