Skip to main content

Topic: fb2k-component packages vs zip files (Read 10910 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Mr.Duck
  • [*][*]
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
This plugin finally fixed WASAPI seek issues with my USB audio interface.

But to install, just unpack to components directory is so much easier. It would be better if this component was uploaded as a zip to begin with.

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #1
But to install, just unpack to components directory is so much easier. It would be better if this component was uploaded as a zip to begin with.

How is unpacking a zip "so much easier" than double-clicking a file?

  • Mr.Duck
  • [*][*]
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #2
But to install, just unpack to components directory is so much easier. It would be better if this component was uploaded as a zip to begin with.

How is unpacking a zip "so much easier" than double-clicking a file?

It's not. I would have to load Foobar2000 to import the component.

I don't use the user-components folder. I can't be bothered. It's neater to put everything in components which is what I do. Since I went there to rename the old foo_out_wasapi for backup (which I would still do if I was using the user-components folder), I just tried renaming the wasapi 3 beta to zip to see if it could be unpacked, which it could, so I then just copied it over. Easy peasy.

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #3
I don't use the user-components folder.
Means you're not able to use automatic component updates. Sounds like great improvement indeed.
Quote
It's not. I would have to load Foobar2000 to import the component.
You have to load your archiver instead to unpack the zip. So much for great efficiency.
Quote
Since I went there to rename the old foo_out_wasapi for backup (which I would still do if I was using the user-components folder)
From what I see on the crash report tracker, lots of people do that, then get issues due to running different versions of the same component side-by-side. Nothing stops you from keeping backups of original component packages to easily change between different versions of the component and have foobar2000 deal with additional files required by the component for you instead of having them lying around in your components folder after you move/rename the component DLL.
  • Last Edit: 22 May, 2012, 01:41:14 PM by Peter

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #4
But to install, just unpack to components directory is so much easier. It would be better if this component was uploaded as a zip to begin with.
How is unpacking a zip "so much easier" than double-clicking a file?
It's not.
I’m confused, but anyway…

I would have to load Foobar2000 to import the component.
As Peter implied, shouldn’t you just be able to double-click on foo_out_wasapi.fb2k-component from Explorer and have foobar2000 install it automatically? Otherwise, I suspect something is amiss in your file associations.

  • Mr.Duck
  • [*][*]
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #5
Means you're not able to use automatic component updates. Sounds like great improvement indeed.

Yes but that only because foobar blocks updating components from this folder by design. It doesn't have to be this way. The installer could 'take ownership' of "C:\program files\foobar2000" instead (to make sure it gets read/write access, if that was one of reasons for this new design). I did try to use the new default behaviour of using the user-components folder when the feature became available. After a short while I decided it wasn't worth it. I would either manually update components anyway, or "TAK Decoder" would get into an infinite updating loop, or even if it did work properly, it left mess behind which I had to manually clean up by deleting files. Plus it would make too many sub folders to store everything in. Even with multiple users on the same machine, I would just keep separate, portable foobar2000s. It's a whole lot less hassle this way.


You have to load your archiver instead to unpack the zip. So much for great efficiency.

Nope, I just use a real file manager. Even if I didn't, I would only have to double click on the zip to open it.


From what I see on the crash report tracker, lots of people do that, then get issues due to running different versions of the same component side-by-side.

I renamed it so it no longer had the dll extension. No issues would be caused.


Nothing stops you from keeping backups of original component packages to easily change between different versions of the component and have foobar2000 deal with additional files required by the component for you instead of having them lying around in your components folder after you move/rename the component DLL.

Not sure exactly how that works, but I can't see how it is going to be any easier because I'm going to be loosing control. If there were many extra required files, I would prefer to manage them myself, keeping a backup of the original download if necessary to show all the file names that are used (which is far from necessary in this case).

  • Mr.Duck
  • [*][*]
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #6
As Peter implied, shouldn’t you just be able to double-click on foo_out_wasapi.fb2k-component from Explorer and have foobar2000 install it automatically? Otherwise, I suspect something is amiss in your file associations.

Portable foobar2000. Portable everything possible for that matter.

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #7
Whoops, me dumb.

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #8
It doesn't have to be this way. The installer could 'take ownership' of "C:\program files\foobar2000" instead (to make sure it gets read/write access, if that was one of reasons for this new design).

Not a very good idea, especially on Vista/Win7.

or "TAK Decoder" would get into an infinite updating loop,

No problems here. foo_input_tak 0.4.4.

  • marc2003
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #9
can't your archiver unpack files from the context menu? i use 7-zip and it opens .fb2k-compoent files just fine.

  • Mr.Duck
  • [*][*]
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #10
Not a very good idea, especially on Vista/Win7.

Why is that not a good idea?


can't your archiver unpack files from the context menu? i use 7-zip and it opens .fb2k-compoent files just fine.

Yeah I'm sure it could if I set it up. That reminds me I should do that sometime.

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #11
If you can install components manually without shooting yourself in the foot and also prefer updating them manually, that is good for you.

Releasing the new ASIO component recently revealed that lots of people try to install components manually and end with corrupted installations by misplacing additional files bundled with the component that are required by the component to function. Hence the .fb2k-component format (yes, they are renamed zip files), which encourages people to let fb2k handle the whole archive for them.

Please do not recommend other users to install components manually; while the concept is still functional, it has been proven to cause problems - especially for "geek" users who think they know better how specific component should be installed.

Yes but that only because foobar blocks updating components from this folder by design.
It does not block updating components, it leaves them alone because it has no idea which additional files belong to which component.
Quote
...or "TAK Decoder" would get into an infinite updating loop
Never heard of such issue. Have you posted about it in the tech support forum?
Quote
or even if it did work properly, it left mess behind which I had to manually clean up by deleting files.
Mess? Cleaning up? Downloaded files are left in a local cache folder to prevent server hammering if some component developer uploads a malformed package (which you seem to have witnessed with TAK Decoder). Sounds like you're too impatient to let foobar2000 automatically delete old downloads after one week.

  • Mr.Duck
  • [*][*]
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #12
Please do not recommend other users to install components manually; while the concept is still functional, it has been proven to cause problems - especially for "geek" users who think they know better how specific component should be installed.

Ok, sorry.


Never heard of such issue. Have you posted about it in the tech support forum?

It tried to download the latest version (0.4.4), and then every time it did, it thought version "0.4." was installed and tried to download to the latest version again which didn't match the installed version. Other people didn't experience this bug. My Foobar config needs an overhaul so maybe I'll reinstall it and try this again at some point.


Mess? Cleaning up? Downloaded files are left in a local cache folder to prevent server hammering if some component developer uploads a malformed package (which you seem to have witnessed with TAK Decoder). Sounds like you're too impatient to let foobar2000 automatically delete old downloads after one week.

I didn't know it would clear these cache files after a week. I'm so used to other programs leaving a tonne of crap behind in various folders buried in the operating system and in the registry.

  • mobyduck
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #13
I've been wanting to ask this for a while now, so here it goes...

Does installing in the user-components folder mean that two users on the same PC are no longer able to share the SAME fb2k install?

I'm still on XP and I use the "old" method (it's an upgrade of a pre-V1 install). My "problem" is that I have two accounts (admin and non-admin) that are using the same foobar2000 instance: they are in fact the same user (me) so same config, same stats, same playlists, etc. I can even close the player, login with the other account and playback will resume where the previous user left it.

That's exactly how I want it but, since sooner or later I'll have to switch to Win7, I'm wondering if I will be able to clone this environment with a "standard" install or I'll have to go portable.

Thanks for any insight.

Alessandro

  • kode54
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #14
If you use a portable installation, the built-in components installer will create a user-components folder inside the foobar2000 application folder. All users of that portable installation will share configuration and components, although it is not advised to try running the same portable installation from multiple accounts simultaneously. In fact, I think the instance blocking named mutex object will block that from happening, anyway.

  • mobyduck
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #15
it is not advised to try running the same portable installation from multiple accounts simultaneously.
Thanks for the answer. I'm not using fb2k from two users simultaneously, sorry if I was unclear.

Alessandro

  • kode54
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #16
I gathered that, but I figured I'd point it out anyway.

fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #17
Can someone (Peter? Others?) tell me what to do with the "WASAPIHost64.exe"/"WASAPIHost32.exe" present in the latest beta (5) upon manually opening with WinRAR? These were not present in beta 4, just the DLL file. In other words, I'd like to know in what directory, if anywhere, I am to extract them. I am using a 64-bit version of Win 7.

  • kode54
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
fb2k-component packages vs zip files
Reply #18
Obviously, to the same directory as the component.