Component system

Discuss the development and future direction of Play.
Post Reply
shanecavanaugh
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:32 am
Contact:

Component system

Post by shanecavanaugh » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:52 pm

I've never used foobar2000, but its reliance on plugins for extended functionality sounds interesting because it seems that everyone wants something slightly different from their music player, and just having a basic installation that can be built upon would ease the burden of having to be everything to everyone. I mention this because there are many things about foobar that look and sound cool, but I know that requesting that they be put into Play could come at the expense of either its ease of use or someone else's preferable experience with it, and I'd like it to be a premier music player for OS X.

User avatar
krmathis
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by krmathis » Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:06 pm

It is now more than three years since I last used foobar2000, but I still miss parts of it.

Especially its modular system, where you first install a basic player which barely play MP3 file. Then add your own modules for the features you need. Like; audio codecs/container formats, CD burning/ripping, ABX tester, etc...

I understand that this probably would be a lot of work, and perhaps hard for the novice users to understand. But the advanced users would love it. :)
Something to consider maybe?

Maurits
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: London, Europe

Post by Maurits » Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:53 pm

It may be a lot of work to reach where Foobar is now but you can keep it in mind from the start. If you know now that you might want to introduce skinning or modules later on I think you can take that into account in the early development stages already.

Furthermore, maybe one of the biggest benefits of modules is perhaps that it can cut up the development process in smaller pieces. Although software like Max is Open Source it must be hard for someone else to make big contributions to it because of a steep learning curve getting to know someone else's code. A module system can let people work on smaller things they'd like to see themselves, it motivates and keeps codebases small.

Yonzie
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:29 pm
Contact:

Post by Yonzie » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:51 am

Maurits wrote:It may be a lot of work to reach where Foobar is now
It's been a few years under way though ;) What attracted me to foobar way back when it was very new was the notepad player. No crap, fluff, bloat, etc. All I want is the iTunes library view with the ability to move the "song title" column.
Project complete: 625 CDs containing 8574 tracks ripped and scanned.

Mike1
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:55 pm

Post by Mike1 » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:36 am

krmathis wrote:It is now more than three years since I last used foobar2000, but I still miss parts of it.

... ABX tester ...
I'd heard it had this feature. Am I right in thinking that it can also check the integrity of a FLAC file via the file's internal MD5 sum? I've heard that program described as "Spartan", but I suspect there's quite a few other nice features in it that aren't in other programs that have more in other ways.

I've no opinion on the overall topic of "modularity" - not even having dabbled in programming I'd not like to venture a guess as to what's best. But the discussion is also interesting from the aspect of the discussion of the features it's throwing up. I'm not sure just how useful some of them would be, but since some of them are unlikely to be available in anything else, I'll bet Stephen has been mulling them over.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests