MatteoCampinoti94
commented
8 months ago The folder structure was designed the way it is for two reasons:
- To make sure there aren't too many items in each folder
- To make sure that if a user changes their name then the files don't need to be moved
That said, I like the idea of custom path formats! They must use the ID as one of the components to ensure uniqueness, but otherwise it's perfectly fine to use {author}/{year}/{month}/{id} or {id_split}, or something else. Further, it would be relatively easy to test if a path format guarantees uniqueness, so there is no need to restrict it to predefined options.
It's definitely coming in the next version!
In the meantime, why not use the built-in server? It'll let you navigate and search galleries, and I've finished development of the next version which is pretty much a complete backend overhaul, you can install it directly from the repo if you don't wanna wait for the release.
Ravani-Hrath
The idea
First of all I would like to just say great job on the program so far, it's easy to use in all the ways that matter and on top of all it actually works. However I would like to request the option for an alternative local file structure. Right now it's all saved as a mixed bag in recursive folders based on the file ID, this is fine and all if you just want a copy and only of one user but when you want to browse them with an image viewer or have multiple users it becomes a bit of a hassle, if at all possible i would like to request the option to at least have it separated by user(i'm personally a bit partial to the format: "(author)/(upload_date) - (title).(ext)") although ideally if it's not too much to ask i would prefer a user defined structure using the values it is already saving to the database anyway.
With that said keep up the good work I really like the program as it currently is already.
Implementation ideas
have a section in the database where the user can either specify one of a set of predefined folder structures or the option to enter a user defined structure