NO TTH Discussion

[Toast]

[08-07-21][12:28:48 | SE] <Toast> if u add in your CMD No TTH Support found as a built in action
[08-07-21][12:28:58 | SE] <Toast> apex and rsx has multible selction
[08-07-21][12:29:03 | SE] <Toast> just yours that doesnt
[08-07-21][12:29:40 | SE] <Toast> if u add the no tth support in the built in cmd then i can skip having this detection in the list
[08-07-21][12:29:52 | SE] <Toast> code can be found in rsx and in apex for that
[08-07-21][12:30:05 | SE] <Toast> thats my small request
[08-07-21][12:30:50 | CZ] <BigMuscle> i will have a look at it, but i don't want to add any special functions which can be done in client profiles
[08-07-21][12:31:01 | SE] <Toast> bah pretty pls
[08-07-21][12:31:21 | SE] <Toast> it gets kinda messy for apex and rsx users if there are dubble detections
[08-07-21][12:33:03 | SE] <Toast> Now playing @ 256kbps: Beam Feat. Niki Saletta - I Roam (Dave May Electrohouse Excursion) (03:49/05:12) (Played:73%)
[08-07-21][12:36:34 | CZ] <BigMuscle> Toast: so ask them to remove the feature why there whould be some bloat code if it can be easily done via one client profile
[08-07-21][12:36:43 | SE] <Toast> hehe
[08-07-21][12:36:48 | SE] <Toast> u ask em
[08-07-21][12:37:13 | SE] <Toast> i nag on them constantly .P
[08-07-21][12:37:14 | SE] <Toast>
[08-07-21][12:37:37 | CZ] <BigMuscle> hehe, I don't need to ask them, I don't want it

[Crise]

Is Crise aware of this?

Yes I am my part is already done...

[MikeJJ]

[08-07-21][12:36:34 | CZ] <BigMuscle> Toast: so ask them to remove the feature why there whould be some bloat code if it can be easily done via one client profile

I would think something like this is better off hardcoded, as it isn't going to change. it'll be more a lot efficient, and only take a few lines of c++.

[Toast]

Well it hard for me todo the profiles when some support it and some dont
and it was BMs Request and mine that it could be only AML Supported that way every client has it cause im not going to remove it

[MikeJJ]

Okay, i just take the view, that anything which Never changes, should be hardcoded.
As it's unchanging, it shouldn't need a profile.
Not only will it be faster that way it'll also mean smaller, easier to maintain profiles.

If you want to see what i mean from an efficiency point of view, use a client with the Debug Window, and enable CDM Debug Messages. Watch it scroll though every XML entry (well until it gets a match on an entry) for every profile for every user (i remember this from the DCDM days).

[Crise]

tbh. I agree with MikeJJ's point of view, but figured it's no use making things difficult... not like adrian/Toast are going to listen to me (Toast because, well he's Toast and Adrian because he seems to dislike hardcoded detections to begin with).

[adrian_007]

in this certain thing i can agree with you and mikejj, this thing never gonna change. also some ppl maybe just don't need to use all profiles/uses his own

[Toast]

Well if all devs execept BM wants it its up to you guys to convince BM to insert it into sDC then i can drop it from the profiles

simple all client should have this detection hardcoded or not

[adrian_007]

do i really care? do bm really care? ... it seems like you're the only one who don't like this situation... just keep that damn one item in list and everyone will be happy

(from coder point of view, this detection is done far before profiles check)

[Toast]

From my point of view its standardization in detection feature