|
Request AlphaGroups label length variable
|
|
Yesterday, 21:19
Post: #1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Request AlphaGroups label length variable
Using AlphaGroups label are now fix with length 1c.
Is it possible to make the length variable by defining the length by an extra parameter: <indexTag>=<nr>:<label_lengt> Label_length: - default = 1 - 1 till a certain maximum - 0 = length is variable <= maximum With regards, Bart Kamminga |
|||
|
Yesterday, 22:14
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Request AlphaGroups label length variable
It sounds like this is something that the control point would need to provide, not the server. The server sends metadata to the control point and the control point chooses how to lay it out on screen.
|
|||
|
Yesterday, 22:55
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Request AlphaGroups label length variable
(Yesterday 22:14)simoncn Wrote: It sounds like this is something that the control point would need to provide, not the server. The server sends metadata to the control point and the control point chooses how to lay it out on screen. Using the AlphaGoup "cumulator" I only notice 1 character i.e. the first character of the indexTag as a label tag. I think when this could be expanded by some amount of characters that it will deliver a clearer and more optimized library overview. For Date it already works well, for other indexTags it ends up with only the first character. |
|||
|
Today, 11:43
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Request AlphaGroups label length variable
Thanks for clarifying this and my apologies for not understanding what you were proposing.
The alphaGroup option shows up to 26 alphabetic selections grouped by first letter, with three special groupings. This is simple and can be implemented very efficiently using a small fixed-length array of 29 groups. Extending this to an index of groups with more than one letter would require a very different implementation. Two letters could require up to 676 alphabetic groups and three letters could require up to 17576 alphabetic groups. Supporting this would be more complex and much less efficient. I presume your comment about Date refers to the Decade option (1960s, 1970s, etc.). There are usually a very small number of different decades in a library, so there should be no concerns with efficiency. |
|||
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Search
Member List
Calendar
Help



