Would love to see collections get a concept similar to Libraries' save location — a designated home folder.
When browsing a collection, any new items created (new file, new folder, paste, etc.) would land in the home folder and automatically show up in the collection view.
Right now if I'm working inside a collection and want to create something new, I have to leave the collection, create it in the physical folder, then add it back manually. A home folder would make collections a proper working environment rather than just a display mechanism.
I thought about this idea some.
Yes, it is an interesting idea, but I'm afraid it is a double edged sword.
It sounds like you really want to work more with Libraries, where dragged files and folders are simply copied.
Collections retain the original links to diverse filesystem origins as I understand it.
So to implement a folder with a real filesystem path for anything New in the collection would retain the links to that folder.
Sorry, but It kind of defeats the purpose.
Anything added to the The Find Results Collection for instance, now has this this other folder to reckon as well.
Well, if I'm wrong, and I often am, perhaps we can just move on past this after a quick scolding from Leo.
He does have a point; that file creation in collections is only one-way.
Not that right clicking and “open containing folder” is difficult. But that is more work than no work.
These are the types of things that made me try to strongarm Dopus into being a database program. It has all the columns, grouping, collections and query functions to be the same as a database. The problem is files have to be able to carry the metadata, and none of them agree as to what they will carry.
Tags is the answer to that (every information system that has ever existed rests on a foundation of a type of tagging), but you would think any computer programmers on this green Earth would give us auto tagging? That file that I put in the same folder, which all the other files have that group of tags, you think maybe I might want to have the SAME TAGS ON THAT ONE TOO? Is that concept too much for these people? They can create backflipping robots, reaper drones, aes 256 encryption and underground submarine cables, but can’t handle auto-tags or a universal metadata container.
…
Apparently you can’t share a music video anymore without a playlist being forced onto it. Another way of tricking people to stay on the website longer. Computer programmers sure know how to make money; I wish they would know how to earn it, without en■■■■tifying absolutely everything they touch. Can they not say “No!” to their overlords? “This will make the world worse, not better. I will not help you do that.” Aren’t these men?
Libraries are essentially dead (accord to Microsoft), also Opus collections are way better and much more flexible.
Not every collection folder would require a "home" folder, since collections are open ended, have diverse use cases, to that end, to be able to set a "home" folder for one, would make them just much more accomodating. Many times am draging urls, images, etc from a web browser and want to just drop them into a collection but I cant, I have to detour to a folder, then add the file to the collection.
huh?? mate, are you serious?? thats what collections are, they have a serious of folders as their source. And its not a "every collection has to have 'home' folder", that would not even be backwards compatible. but that its gotta be an option that a collection can have.
So why not use Opus libraries then? Aside from "Microslop deprecated them", I don't see any reason on your part not to use them, given your current requirements.
In my opinion, Collections serve other purposes. They would need to create a new concept for another VFS, which would be very similar(if not equal) to what existing libraries already offer.
Libraries, aside from them being dead, are very limited when compared to Collections, for one various Opus features have deep integration with collections, and Opus support for Libraries, is no more than Explorer.
For one you can nests Colletions inside Collections, you cant do that with libraries, and probably the wost thing, in the case of libraries, is its "all or nothing" apraoch, that is, when you add a folder to a library, it adds all ofits items, no filtering or control of any kind.
Am asking for that one redeeming feature from Libraries, added on top of the features only found in Collections.
True. This is something i didn't consider at first. An "enhanced collection" can bring support to some libraries features. Or maybe something as a filtered library.
From a quick look, Libraries still work in File Explorer, there just isn't a shortcut to them in Explorer's folder tree (but it is missing shortcuts to almost everything now, so that doesn't mean much).
Yeah, I wasn't thinking that at the time I answered either.
What is still bothering me is the duplication and conflict with links.
How do you think we could get a new filtered folder into the collection ?
The resultant Directory Structure is not normal.
Edit: A folder dragged into a collection as a sub-collection retains the Coll:// root,
but a folder of the same name dragged into a collection retains the original path.
How under this proposal can we have two folders of the same name in a collection ?