[mythtv] [PATCH] Add more views to mythgame

[Barney Barumba]

Jon Wanderer wrote:

>Hi there,
>
>I've spent a few months assembling and using my mythbox, and I'd just
>like to say thanks to everyone who has put this software together--it's
>great. I saw some room for improvement in the mythgame interface that
>the updates in 0.18 made possible and I put this patch together
>(attached).
>
>This is a simple patch that adds to Barney's MythGame improvements. It
>expands the two hardcoded nodes to six by adding the ability to see all
>of your games sorted by name, system type, year and genre. This makes it
>considerably easier for me to browse through the 11,000-odd games I have
>spanning 5 game systems as I don't have to leave mythgame to reconfigure
>the sort string to get a different view my collection.
>
>Ultimately it would be neat if you could easily search games by name or
>jump around alphabetically, say. And it would be even neater if the
>nodes' levels/filter strings were stored in the database and were
>customizable. But until someone with more time and skill than I have
>takes a crack at it, this should make mythgame easier to use.
>
>Cheers,
>Jon
>  
>
>  
>
Hi Jon,

Personally, I'm never too keen on hardcoding stuff like this - for every 
person with 11,000 games there's probably someone else with 100 games or 
so who doesn't need all these different roots.

What may be a better approach would be to increase the number of root 
nodes (to 6?, or maybe 8?), but have each one configurable on the 
settings page. For each node you could add the root name (that appears 
in the tree) to the configuration options, and change the code to ignore 
the node if no levels are specified. Probably make favourites-only 
configurable for each root node as well. This would enable you to set up 
your system with your six root nodes, and others to use less if they 
wanted. Using the standard settings page approach would also enable the 
settings to be saved in the database.

Ideally, we should come up with a dynamic solution which had no 
hardcoded maximum number of roots, but I never managed to think of a 
good way of doing that. I think Ed Wildgoose was also looking at 
something along these lines a while back - not sure how that is going :-)

Cheers,

Barney