Request: Selective Download for "functionality resources"

I'd really like to see a way to control which RIs, grammars, and other datasets get downloaded to my hard drive. I'd be fine if these showed up under a special facet in the library...

Please at least remove the .lbsrvi file(s) when the associated bible gets removed (this wouldn't require any UI changes). At the very least, don't "helpfully" re-download the file if I delete it manually (this could be overridden with an "update datasets" command).

For the purposes of my minimalist installation, I really only want less than 1/3 of the current non-library resources.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Adam Borries (Logos)

I'd really like to see a way to control which RIs, grammars, and other datasets get downloaded to my hard drive. I'd be fine if these showed up under a special facet in the library...

... For the purposes of my minimalist installation, I really only want less than 1/3 of the current non-library resources.

This was considered. While we recognize the need (datasets and other "non-library" resources are often >5GB), it was deemed out scope for the current project. We will consider again in the future if there is a strong user demand.

Adam Borries (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1030851#Comment_1030851

At the very least, don't "helpfully" re-download the file if I delete it manually

Reuben, I think you are savvy enough to work around it, but I'll just remind you and other readers that Logos isn't designed for manually deleting, restoring, or editing files. This is unsupported and generally discouraged.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1030851#Comment_1030851

I'd really like to see a way to control which RIs, grammars, and other datasets get downloaded to my hard drive. I'd be fine if these showed up under a special facet in the library...

... For the purposes of my minimalist installation, I really only want less than 1/3 of the current non-library resources.

This was considered. While we recognize the need (datasets and other "non-library" resources are often >5GB), it was deemed out scope for the current project. We will consider again in the future if there is a strong user demand.

I think RVI files should be considered, as the unused RVI files alone can be significant e.g. 900 MB for 18 files without the corresponding library resources. So the unused RVI's could be removed when the user starts removing resources. And the associated RVI's should be removed when the resource is removed. Other datasets are problematical because there could be nasty side effects (and they would have to be identified in some way).

Note: "unused" RVI's can arise because the associated resources had been hidden. If necessary, the user could unhide those resources and then remove them to the cloud to get rid of the RVI files.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1030875#Comment_1030875

I think RVI files should be considered, as the unused RVI files alone can be significant e.g. 900 MB for 18 files without the corresponding library resources.

Yes. That was a factor in the decision.

And the associated RVI's should be removed when the resource is removed.

That's also on the list of things that we'd like to do at some point down the road.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1030876#Comment_1030876

I think RVI files should be considered, as the unused RVI files alone can be significant e.g. 900 MB for 18 files without the corresponding library resources.

Yes. That was a factor in the decision.

I'm puzzled how that was a factor, as RVI files don't require user interaction to be removed, and one might have to remove over 300 resources to achieve a saving of 900 MB.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031160#Comment_1031160

I think RVI files should be considered, as the unused RVI files alone can be significant e.g. 900 MB for 18 files without the corresponding library resources.

Yes. That was a factor in the decision.

I'm puzzled how that was a factor, as RVI files don't require user interaction to be removed, and one might have to remove over 300 resources to achieve a saving of 900 MB.

I think it may have been a factor in their decision to deal with RVI files later instead of never.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031160#Comment_1031160

I'm puzzled how that was a factor, as RVI files don't require user interaction to be removed, and one might have to remove over 300 resources to achieve a saving of 900 MB.

When the decision was made, we were aware of both the size of RVI files and that it would be nice to have those automatically added and removed with their associated resource.

As Adam said,

it was deemed out scope for the current project