IR 5.00 now available

chas6000 · Post by **chas6000** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:22 pm

The Robman wrote:Paul,
I have a suggestion for 5.00 if I may. If someone is saving an IR file and they haven't added any notes or anything else that is only supported by the new version of IR, could you save the file in the old format.

This should enable people to just use the new IR even if they are also using some other utilities that have not yet been updated to handle the new format.

Without this change, some people may find that they need to keep 4.02 and 5.00 available.

It would be nice to have the 500 format as the default, but to be able to save in 402 format if chosen

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:32 pm

Maybe it's time to give the new format IR files a unique file extension... something like .ir perhaps?

chas6000 · Post by **chas6000** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:15 pm

i have also noticed that in 500 if you read in a file, and modify it, and 'save as' to a new file name, the window heading still has the original file name. i do not know if you now do a 'save' it overwrites the original file.

e34m5 · Post by **e34m5** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:46 pm

I already had the code for the notes. So what I needed to do was convert the file so that it all looked the same.

In order for this to work I have to convert the file first. I suppose we could go back to having a separate notes files, but people didn't lilke that either.

So the choices are 2 files (txt and notes) or one file as is.

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:17 pm

e34m5 wrote:In order for this to work I have to convert the file first.

I can understand having to convert the file contents, but can't imagine why it would need to be saved upon doing so. Aren't the file contents read into memory?

So the choices are 2 files (txt and notes) or one file as is.

Honestly, that's not much of a choice. A new file extension for the new format would be a much better alternative than blindly changing every file upon opening it.

e34m5 · Post by **e34m5** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:03 pm

I can make a new extension easily.

.IR would be just fine. I'll read in the contents of the txt and save it as .IR

Let me know if this works for you guys. For those who have already done so all they would need to do is rename the file with a .IR

Post by **The Robman** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:46 pm

My vote would be to keep the .txt extension but I'd be OK with .IR if that's what everyone else wants.

However, I didn't realize that the program was updating files on opening them, this is a bad idea and totally goes against all conventional standards. I accept that you need to convert the data as the file is opened, but the converted data should be stored in memory and only written back to the file is the user selects the "Save" option.

e34m5 · Post by **e34m5** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:17 am

I disagree. As an IT manager in the corporate world I can assure that we do this routinely. It is the developers prerogative how to strore the data not the users.

johnsfine · Post by **johnsfine** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:36 am

Given the choices offered, I would slightly prefer the choice of changing the extension.

That still has problems in cases where the source directory is read only, but at least it meets reasonable user expectations for the source FILE. I don't like argueing with the guy doing the work. Otherwise I'd have some comments about that statement in e34m5's last post.

The best choice is to have the program retain the old version of the file reader, and simply have a new version as well. Read either format. Write only new format. Remember which format was last used, so on the first write of a file read from old format, rename the old.

A distant second best would be to convert the file to the new format but with a temp name (when trying to read an old format file). Preferably delete the temp file as soon as read. Anyway never write back to the temp file. Then you still need the logic when doing a save after that to rename the original and save in the original name.

Third best is going to a new extension.

As it is now (or was when I last tried it) is only slightly worse than that. I don't like changing the extension at this point, but I dislike even more stepping on a file the user thinks is input only.

Splitting back to seperate files is much worse. That creates a long term mess instead of just a transition.

e34m5 · Post by **e34m5** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:01 am

Perhaps the best thing is simply to pull back 5.00 and leave well enough alone.

I have been extremely patient with this whole thing, Frankly it has dragged on. Last time I asked for input I did not receive any other than the version number.

You all have had a lot of time with this. It would have been nice if some one had mentioned it earlier.

John..what ever you have to say come out and say it. You may not like what I said, but rest assured that is how we do it in my world. We have 1000's of users.

Why would any one on a personel PC have anything be read only? That is beyond me.

As I have said before I did this as a labor of love like we all do for JP1, but it has not been very pleasent. Whether or not you guys like my style is not really my probelm.

I offered what I could.

johnsfine · Post by **johnsfine** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:32 am

e34m5 wrote: John..what ever you have to say come out and say it. You may not like what I said, but rest assured that is how we do it in my world. We have 1000's of users.

I obviously said more than I should have already. I'd prefer to drop that.

I'm sorry I was busy when you started providing things to test. Not testing IR was far from the only JP1 activity I've been behind on lately, but other than many short moments while my real work is going through a slow compile or test, I don't have a lot of JP1 time. Testing others' work and most other JP1 activities require more continuity of effort than those allow.

I haven't changed my opinion on how IR "ought" to work, but I also haven't changed my opinion on the position of the guy doing the work in a volunteer project, relative to all the people using it.

If you change your mind back and decide to continue with it, I'm sure people will appreciate all the improvemts (and of course that doesn't stop people from commenting on any flaws).

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:34 am

Seems to me that what would satisfy everyone is to:

1) Convert the old style file to a temp or in memory when read and only save the new format when a save or save as is done.

NOTE: I personally did not have a problem with the "automatic conversion and save" since I used it to convert all of my files without having to do an extra save and still had the old format if I needed it in the .old file.

2) Another option until ExtInstall and IRtoWAV are upgraded is to have a "save as version 4 for external programs" option.

3) Another option is to save both formats but I don't like that one.

Since the old style is saved (as .old) when the conversion is done then that satisfies the temporary need for the old file until the ExtInstall and IRtoWAV are upgraded to accept either the old or the new format. This would be the only reason for two file formats anyway and only an inconvenience to ExtInstall and IRtoWAV users until they are upgraded. Option 2 would satisfy the need for the old style if the use upgrades the file and needs another input for these external programs. So the scope of the problem really dependant on how long it will take to have ExtInstall and IRtoWAV upgraded.

e34m5 · Post by **e34m5** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:48 am

I don't want to pull back 5.00. I wish I had this when I was configuring my remote, but all this whining get's on my nerves.

I just don't understand why it's such a big deal with the file. I respect your opinion and I wish people would respect mine.

I personally thought I did quite well considering I had never seen the IR code before.

As I mentioned previously it is not uncommon to change to file formats in future releases of an app. So I chose to do it this way as the developer. There is nothing preventing people from using 4.02 as well. That is why I left the .old file.

So at this point I offer that we can change the file extension to what ever (even though I don't favor this).

So once again if you all don't want this tell me, apologies if a I have offended any one.

Thanks for reading my rant.

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:54 am

Paul, I like what you have done and believe that it made alot of people very happy, especially me since what you added has been asked for for a very long time.

Obviously, I like the options (1 and 2) that I layed out above but I would wait until others comment on it.

e34m5 · Post by **e34m5** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:59 am

Remember that option one results in two files.