Sorting trees or folders for trees

[guest]

This is not a but a suggestion: The possibility to create folders for the trees calculated would be a very helpful feature. Having several projects at the same time it will finally either end up in different databases (I do not prefer this) or a mess in the administration.

[westram]

• fix together with #120

[westram]

• related: [8556] adds simpler way to sort -list

[westram]

Unneeded when #240 gets implemented.

[epruesse]

Just my $0.02, but I think search & query does not replace hierarchical management. Search is good for finding, but folder structures are good for organizing. E.g. having normal folders is still sensible, even with a desktop search engine like spotlight. I wouldn't want to give it up.

So personally I think having folder based management, ideally for all objects including SAIs and "species", would still be a useful addition.

[westram]

Replying to epruesse:

So personally I think having folder based management, ideally for all objects including SAIs and "species", would still be a useful addition.

Yes.. would be. In fact we already have that (not for trees, but for generic items), since folders are just a special kind of attribute assigned to items - which is a key feature .

A more general concept would be tags, where folders would just be a special case, only allowing one tag (the folder name) per item.

The question is how to use/present such a concept inside ARB..

[westram]

see also generic sort proposed with #788