TOSECdev Forum

TOSEC Project => General Discussion => Topic started by: Wanderer on August 31, 2017, 08:44:18 PM

Title: About dat files naming
Post by: Wanderer on August 31, 2017, 08:44:18 PM
Hi.

I have a question / suggestion about the naming not of the roms but of the dats.

Currently, there are:

Acorn Archimedes - xxx.dat
Acorn Atom - xxx.dat
Acorn BBC - xxx.dat
...

Since all computers are of the same company, wouldn't be better if the names of the files were:

Acorn - Archimedes - xxx.dat
Acorn - Atom - xxx.dat
Acorn - BBC - xxx.dat
...

That way, the first part of the filename would actually be the name of the company and the second of the model. It would also be more clear in a folder representation to have:

Acorn
-- Archimedes
-- Atom
-- BBC
...

Comments?
Title: Re: About dat files naming
Post by: Maddog on August 31, 2017, 08:59:09 PM
What you are describing already is the default folder structure for TOSEC, regardless of the names of the individual dats.

Take a careful look at the "create folders" and "move" scripts. Using those with Romvault will give you exactly this kind of structure, with a root folder named after the company and subfolders named after the systems.
Title: Re: About dat files naming
Post by: Wanderer on August 31, 2017, 10:20:38 PM
What you are describing already is the default folder structure for TOSEC, regardless of the names of the individual dats.

Take a careful look at the "create folders" and "move" scripts. Using those with Romvault will give you exactly this kind of structure, with a root folder named after the company and subfolders named after the systems.

Well, what i'm trying to accomplish is to "extract" the folder structure from the dat filenames without the need for anything else. :)
Title: Re: About dat files naming
Post by: tomse on September 01, 2017, 12:18:42 AM
I'm guessing you're looking for a separator i.e " - " right ?

Title: Re: About dat files naming
Post by: Wanderer on September 17, 2017, 11:06:03 AM
I'm guessing you're looking for a separator i.e " - " right ?

Exactly that. :)  It would simplify things and design-wise seems like a valid thing to do. I'm not sure if it will cause any incompatibilities with the general TOSEC logic though. I hope not.