[request] Bradley: Please expose the 'traits' column in collections

[Y] [Y]

100% behind Marks' traits request

Would it be possible to expose the Traits data in Beta versions only? Then you're making it accessible almost exclusively to power users who are OK with things being broken. It might sometimes help Beta testers find bugs, too.

Bradley Grainger (Faithlife) said:

There is only one supported way to modify databases on customers' systems: https://faithlife.com/careers 

[Y]

Bradley Grainger (Faithlife) said:

No, don't modify your databases.

Are you saying that’s not how the tag are stored, or are you just discouraging writing the db? i.e. is it “physically impossible” or just “please don’t while possible”?

Bradley Grainger (Faithlife) said:

Do we? Big Smile

Ok, may be some don’t. But it is a common sense among many free and/or open-source softwares. e.g. MIT license:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

While this warning is against the use of the open-source software, similar warnings can be applied to the db that it's modifying. And these kinds of warning is often not light. The one who hit the button to perform whatever is the one responsible for anything. They are on their own.

Bradley Grainger (Faithlife) said:

There is only one supported way to modify databases on customers' systems: https://faithlife.com/careers Smile

That's very limiting because not everyone has the luxury of becoming a Faithlife employee, nor might they want to have a career there. The better middle ground will be e.g. embedding a full programming language (lua is the common choice, while I like Python more) so that the amount of damage can be minimized/controlled. Example is Adobe's Lightroom which has a catalog also in SQLite database while they provide an embedding lua interpreter for scripting and plugins. A whole Lightroom plugin community exists, and there are some for fee plugins as well that people sell. These plugins often provide functionality that end users might need while Adobe didn't provided yet, and might even eventually provide later. The existence of plugins there liberates one to not have to stick to whatever tools/workflows that Adobe provided. For some softwares, e.g. Microsoft Office, Logos, there's a paradigm on workflows, that either it fits the users well or annoyed them to their gut, without a way to not to be conformed into their mentality. A plugin will change that to some extent. In the case of Adobe Lightroom, most of the stuffs can be done through Lightroom plugin through lua. There are exceptions, but better than not having that option at all. Back to modifying db, it's not as scary as it seems. Perhaps the easiest way to safely perform trial and error is to set up a VM, disconnect its internet, snapshot the image, modify, restore to the snapshot and repeat.

Just to brainstorm, may be release a Logos Developer Edition that comes with no warranty and CS, etc., with quarantined cloud interactions, etc.

I think the point is to differentiate the expectation from Logos between 2 kinds of usage patterns. One is fully supported, with custom service, phone call, online chat, even remote control, etc. Another is just, you know, RTFM where F stands for Faithlife.

MJ. Smith said:

Kolen Cheung said:

But it is a common sense among many free and/or open-source softwares.

Kolen, there are a number of people in the forums who have the skills necessary to update databases, extract data etc. in the ways you insist is necessary. May I suggest that you consider why people with first-rate skills and decades of experience, chose not to follow your suggested path and have not jumped in to support your requests?

The response to the quote is taking it out of context. What was the original quote about?

Edit: hints: the quote was replying to another quote "Do we?", and now what that was referring to then?

MJ. Smith said:

it must back you out of all shared data and statistics.Backing out corrupted data is not trivial.

I don't care if they need to wipe my existence in the cloud database as long as I got to keep my licenses to my resources (i.e. the books, etc.) I don't keep much data in Logos anyway except when there's no choice (i.e. collections, tags, priorities, highlights, etc.) Yes it would be very inconvenient to start even only these over, but I can accept the consequence of this in case I "killed myself" in the experiment.

Since you don't represent Faithlife, I won't read too much into the technical side. (Along the lines of what you said almost suggested a vulnerability in their design that can result in an attack to their server database.) What I want to hear is from Faithlife if they at least support "wiping me clean while preserving my licenses."

" rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

Curious what Reverse Interlinear(s) are desired ?

There are 2 Chinese Bible databases I knew about, from 2 old brothers. One is published somewhere else already, another is something of his lifetime work, but because of his insistence of publishing them freely, it is still hasn't been release. (For now let's focused on this later brother.) His has spent a small fortune hiring a Jewish person (interesting combination of gentile hiring Hebrews) building a half-finished Bible software, and unfortunately the state is so broken and that Jewish guy has found another job, with no documentation whatsoever, he has to give that up. Apparently he might have met Bob and in their conservation it seems Bob has told him in order to build a Bible software one need a million dollar (from verbal dialog so IRRC.) About a decade ago I asked Bob and he said that a reverse interlinear feature will be available soon on PBB. But as usual that hasn't been released (I don't blame them too much, it is easy to promise first until they found a ton of technical issues making it economically infeasible to deliver a working feature.) Recently I have a casual dialog with a Faithlife employee and he said they have no interests in releasing these 2 Chinese Bibles.

So the problem is, in order to enter the Logos ecosystem, one needs the sanction from Logos to be produced by them (often just business decision.) Or you publish via PBB giving people instruction to obtain Logos for free and compile their PBB. BUT, that doesn't work for reverse interlinear title. That makes indie Bible publishing in Logos very hard. (Just to make sure you don't get that wrong, indie here doesn't mean low quality. They are reputable among Chinese Christian circles. But, you know, how much quality Chinese Christian works are there, and how much of them are deemed valuable in the whole "Christian" world where the English / translated-in-English titles are the best? There ain't much good non-indie Chinese Bible anyway, and the 2 brothers I am referring to are pioneers among Chinese Christians to even have Strong number referencing in the Chinese Bible (the later brother's earlier work was together with another now-passed-away brother to produce the first Chinese NT Bible (CUV) with Strong numbers and concordance.).)

Another obvious use of reverse interlinear in PBB is personal Bible translation. I'm sure most people here has done it as an exercise. But as personal books one wrote should be compiled in Logos to use personally (I have a few Bible commentaries compiled and used personally only.) So why not also their own Bible translation, to not let their own notes/works wasted, but at least be their own resources (or even shared)?

Sadly, reverse interlinear in PBB has been requested repeatedly, but it seems at last there's an official statement from a Faithlife/Logos staff stating this feature won't be released.

That's not the end of the world. The first brother I mentioned released his work in a Chinese Bible software which I have bought a copy, but is next to unusable (a few clicks and it crashes!) He also released a web version which is much better (and free! I wish I hasn't purchased that Bible software.) Lately it is also released for free in another mobile app.

It is just very sad Logos-only users cannot make these resources available in the Logos ecosystem. Not only for personal use, but also as a promotion to others who might interested in this resource to start using Logos. It might be hard to imagine, but in my circle, I'm the only one using Logos and I want to change that. (And I've met quite a few different Chinese Christians from different churches. None of those I know uses Logos. I successfully referred to 1 friend to buy Logos though, when Logos still offer referral promotion where the friend get ~25% off discounts and I get like $25.)

" rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

Cars lack complexity of data synchronization with servers

Sadly analogy is never exact. I'm more referring to the desire to DIY. And that's (referring to what you said about cloud's complexity) why I hate the whole cloud thing in general. It takes away the control from the user. Worst kind of cloud is "magical cloud" where it try to be "just works" a.k.a. magical. As I often said, "When it works, it's magic; when it doesn't work, it's magic!" The better kind of cloud is something like Dropbox that gives you version control. i.e. it tries its best, but knows disasters might happen and give you a way to undo. And since the data (files) are transparent to users and nothing but a directory structure, one can always backup and restore. (Many apps relies on Dropbox for cloud sync benefits from the same safety. That's why mobile app cloud sync, whenever involving using a 3rd party cloud service, almost always provides Dropbox first if not the only sync solution. I'm not saying it's the best though.)

Thanks for your constructive input (especially on the worst case scenario to pay $20.) I'm smiling. [:)]

P.S. I'd really like to know if such disastrous situation can really happen, namely, a corrupted database, pushed to the cloud, sync everywhere, undoable disaster. I wonder if it is just Faithlife/Logos' tactics to discourage users to not do this, worrying in the end they are the one who need to fix the mess and took the blame. It is because (if it can be that disastrous,) it just seems to be a very fragile implementation, without validation, and without "snapshots". It seems to me either they don't implement it very well, or they're bluffing. Of course I won't know the answer here (unless one becomes a Faithlife employee and peek at the code!) But in principle there's an easy test here, just use a testing account to try one's best to corrupt the database and see what happens. (Everyone should knows that this is strongly discouraged however. But I'm a Theoretical Scientist meaning I focus on what can be tested in theory, not that one has to perform that experiment. i.e. this is a case that is falsifiable.)