                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.210.42 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of mich...@unhosted.org) client-ip=209.85.210.42;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAE98sDQyYi2zq9UuCYE_vjgCz6PMzdGFNUQz16LjY5xXsMe...@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE98sDShxuhm-7qBRaADi+3KDyKigb9EBzAK8abmwg=_U6c...@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+aD3u0CKWqLsX5Lt3MoeYgEwx5BCj9k=Ft-4PSgy+1cNqp...@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE98sDQyYi2zq9UuCYE_vjgCz6PMzdGFNUQz16LjY5xXsMe...@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 16:54:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+aD3u2Vw_KvndzVDJ7GPUiHQTRmd9jJewFPw_JVeWTnEew...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [unhosted] Feedback on read-write-web-00#simple
From: Michiel de Jong <mich...@unhosted.org>
To: unhosted@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Bjarni R=FAnar Einarsson <b...@pagekite.net>=
 wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Michiel de Jong <mich...@unhosted.org> wr=
ote:
>> thumbnails and annotations and tags are of course nice for a file
>> manager app, but i think that already goes into 'application' rather
>> than 'storage'.
>
> Sure, but if you at least standardize where they should be stored /
> how to find them, then it means apps will be able to use each others'
> data. =A0Without that, it's just chaos.

yes, of course. the way we do that is that the app who comes first
gets to define a file format, and as more apps start to coincide they
would have to cooperate to accomodate each other's need. right now for
'pictures' for instance the format is three folders, one called 'base'
one called 'custom' and one called 'original'. this is the format
OpenPhoto uses.  'custom' is where the various resized thumbnails live
and original has the original photos. so yes, we do have a thumbnail
system, it's just that we don't expect storage providers to run GD or
ImageMagick or whatever server-side. it's not that we don't want
thumbnails, we just want the data processing to be part of the app and
not of the storage.

> I think our fundamental disagreement is you are thinking about apps
> the way Apple thinks about apps, isolated and never communicating with
> each other.

no, i do want apps to communicate with each other. i just don't want
the storage to play an active role in that. the storage should be
passive IMO.