UR using Too Many Resources

[PureMoxie]

Any file item can be linked or stored. Even imported files have the option to only be linked.

Let's say your UR db is in c:\data. If you put files in c:\data\files, you can then link to those and even if you move the whole c:\data directory somewhere else, the links will be maintained.

Whether to link or store really depends on what you are trying to do. There is some benefit to having your files stored in the database, because then you can back up or move only the UR db and still have all your files. However, if you are dealing with thousands of files, prefer a single UR database, and are disciplined enough to keep everything in the same directory path as your database, it seems to make more sense to link.

[schferk]

"Let's say your UR db is in c:\data. If you put files in c:\data\files, you can then link to those and even if you move the whole c:\data directory somewhere else, the links will be maintained."

That's as you'd expect this. Of course, this doesn't resolve problems by renaming. (I, e.g., do lots of renaming, because of adding / changing multiple "tags" in filenames (I have stopped to do them as "comments" within ntfs metadata).

"Whether to link or store really depends on what you are trying to do."

That's confirming what I said. But you mention another aspect, which is backup. Since UR doesn't offer versioning (yet), even for backup reasons, it could be preferable to have these files stay external, and let your synch routine doing the rest, incl. versioning within your archive folder.

"Any file item can be linked or stored. Even imported files have the option to only be linked."

OMG! PureMoxie, I'm generally not into semantic nitpicking (cf. the reprimand I get when in outlinerswforum I dared use the terms "programming" and "scripting" as synonyms when in fact all I wrote about was scripting), and I'm grateful you try to clear things up, here, with me, but in this extreme case, please allow my asking again: "Even imported files have the option to only be linked." - huhhhhhhhh????

Meaning, I don't even understand what that could mean, besides the fact that I try to distinguish the different possibilities by their respective terminology, too.

And btw, UR seems to use "store" and "import" as synonyms, but I also discovered another term (I cannot find again, on top of all those to be found in my post above).

So there remains some semantic chaos, for the time being!

[seanferns]

PureMoxie, not quite. UR doesn't recognize that files have been moved but rather considers the file to have been deleted and recreated elsewhere. You can see this by adding Item Notes to a linked file. On moving the file to another subdirectory the notes are lost. So then UR just functions pretty much like an explorer window with file searching capability. On the other hand, if the file is not going to be moved then linking it elsewhere in the outline become very useful.

[schferk]

Then I suppose the same is true with renaming?

In a general, this absence of even simili-monitoring of changes (renames, moves) in the file structure, of "managed files" by the prog in question (UR, MM and many others), is extremely unhandy in everyday use, and worse, it's annoying because you perfectly know how easy it would be to implement this simili-monitoring.

I perfectly understand that real monitoring would be a little bit over-the-top, i.e. to ask from such an "external" prog (= external to that file format) to monitor file changes done within the file system (from your file manager, or from within the native prog of the given file type) - in fact, good synch progs (GoodSync and Syncovery (ex-SuperFlexible) do this, but of course, they are specialised in such a task - as said, you wouldn't expect such functionality from UR, MM or such.

But simili-monitoring should be possible!

In fact, there isn't any monitoring involved here, you, the user, just refrain from ever make changes (rename, move) to such a file (= linked by UR or MM, etc.) from both the native prog of that file (!), and from within your file managers, and you'd do any such changes from within UR / MM only - which is unhandy enough.

But under this condition, it should be possible to avoid broken links from within such progs pretending to have file M functionality, too.

Btw, would be interesting to know how TB handles this task, in view of the fact that TB outrightly advertizes the file M capabilities of the prog.

As said, I very often rename files, especially those I'm working with, and so I've got a max of broken links in in AO and MM (or if I switched, in UR and MM), the most nasty problem here being that you cannot see from the link target from where (or IF, to begin with) it has been linked to.

That prob should not constantly spoil our "working experience" 30 years after the intro of the pc.

And after all, it's not even simili-monitoring. It's simply that these prog miss a function that updates the link when the prog "KNOWS" the link should be updated, since, as said, you'd do the rename / move within that very prog.

Oh yes, and then you link to one file from 2 progs, and get probs nethertheless...

It's all the fault of MS; such functionality should be implemented into the file system (NTFS), and not every single applic showing its limits. Btw, this very prob of broken links, even with native .lnk links, got me abandon my clones-within-the-filesystem system, thus my "tagging" (= codes in the file names), and hence my need to rename files again and again.

Anyway, it's so big a prob that in my numerous files, instead of linking, I just do "SEE xyz", with a description of xyz that will hopefully remain valid even after renaming xyx a little bit, and then I rely upon quick access by entering the starting chars of the file name within my file manager - a good folder system (and in which "standard" folders are accessible by one key pressing) helps here.

But it's all so cumbersome for us, because "they" do it all so amateurish. No reliable links, 30 years into the pc age, that's devastating. (Hence, the upblown db's, linking avoidance because links are managed so badly.)

[PureMoxie]

Originally Posted by seanferns

PureMoxie, not quite. UR doesn't recognize that files have been moved but rather considers the file to have been deleted and recreated elsewhere. You can see this by adding Item Notes to a linked file. On moving the file to another subdirectory the notes are lost. So then UR just functions pretty much like an explorer window with file searching capability. On the other hand, if the file is not going to be moved then linking it elsewhere in the outline become very useful.

Thanks for the clarification. I rarely move or rename my files, so linking in UR works well for me. It's good to know all the caveats, though.

It would be interesting to see if having two synchronized folders in UR would allow moving a file item from one to another - within UR - while maintaining the UR record and also moving the file on disk.