emms-help
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Recovering playback state of multiple playlists and over multiple se


From: Yuchen Pei
Subject: Re: Recovering playback state of multiple playlists and over multiple sessions
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 22:59:32 +1100
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.2


Yoni Rabkin <yoni@rabkins.net> writes:

Mike Kazantsev <mk.fraggod@gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:35:07 -0400
Yoni Rabkin <yoni@rabkins.net> wrote:

> Unrelated to the mpv player, but related to the topic of > this thread, > how about we add a text property last-stopped-at to a track > to record > the timestamp in the track when it was stopped / paused? We > already > have a last-played property presumably recording when this > track was
> last palyed.
>
> With this we can add a facility to resume where the track > was last > left over. It could be a function to resume a track, and > optionally be a custom variable about the behaviour of
> emms-playlist-mode-play-smart.
>
> What do you think? The trick with that is that last-played doesn't care about the backend, while last-stopped-at requires communication with the backend. I don't mind adding a last-stopped-at, but the feature needs to be aware of if it can reliably get that information, and not populate that field if it
cannot.

Maybe emms can just always store/update emms-playing-time on the track
in playlist?

That'd also double as "last stopped time" without adding any really new concepts, and there's 'info-playing-time for total duration there already.


Otherwise implementation like this jumps to mind:

(funcall (emms-player-get emms-player-playing-p 'query-position))

It's what mpv currently does in response to events, and presumably backends that only get it from somewhere periodically (e.g. stdout
status line) can just cache it in some value.

But if this is not implemented for backend, I'd think that fallback to emms-playing-time would seem reasonable, and then why not just always
store that in the first place? :)

There is no reason not to do that; it wouldn't impact anything.

Great. Now the question is who is going to submit a patch for this? I can do it if you want.

--
Best,
Yuchen

PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
          <https://ypei.me/assets/ypei-pubkey.txt>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]